Awaiting committee decision
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading 2015/07/06
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
-
2015/07/06
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
- #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
-
COM(2014)0368
summary
PURPOSE: to report state of play in implementing the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) programme and identifies new actions. BACKGROUND: the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) aims to offer a simple, clear and predictable regulatory framework for business workers and citizens. It seeks to cut red tape, remove regulatory burdens, simplify and improve the design and quality of legislation. Under REFIT, the Commission is screening the entire stock of EU legislation on an ongoing and systematic basis to identify burdens, inconsistencies and ineffective measures and identified corrective actions. In the October 2013 Communication on REFIT, the Commission set out an ambitious agenda. It identified areas where initiatives foreseen would not be taken forward. It withdrew a number of proposals that had been long blocked in the legislature and repealed a number of pieces of legislation. In total, over 100 actions were identified, half of which were new proposals aimed to simplify and reduce regulatory burden in existing legislation. CONTENT: following on from its October 2013 Communication, the present Communication reports on the state of play in implementing the REFIT programme and identifies new actions. It indicates how the Commission is further strengthening its horizontal regulatory tools – impact assessment, evaluation and stakeholder consultations. It also looks at how EU institutions, Member States and stakeholders in business and civil society are playing their part in exercising this shared responsibility for Regulatory Fitness. Future REFIT initiatives: the Commission considers that new initiatives for simplification and burden reduction are warranted in several areas. These initiatives include the simplification of EU legislation on identity and travel documents, the development of a new comprehensive architecture for business statistics, the extension of the one-stop shop in the area of VAT to all business to consumer supplies together with the development of an EU VAT Web portal to inform businesses about national and EU VAT rules and the codification of legislation on third country listings for visa requirements. The Commission will prepare repeals of legislation in further areas: (i) energy labelling, (ii) transport rates and conditions, (iii) the Common Agricultural Policy; (iv) standardized reporting in the area of environment. In addition, the Commission is also screening the acquis in respect of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters to identify acts which could be repealed in the context of the expiry of the transitional period set out in the Treaties. A close scrutiny of all pending proposals before the legislator has resulted in the identification of further proposals which are either outdated or without support by the legislator and should therefore be suggested for withdrawal. These include proposals on investor compensation schemes, aviation security charges, pregnant workers, a compensation fund for oil pollution damage and exempting micro companies from certain food hygiene provisions, even though the latter would have brought significant benefits for smaller businesses. In other key areas where wider policy reviews are in preparation such as the Digital Single Market, it will be important to identify the remaining barriers and assess the regulatory framework for costs and simplification potential. The Commission considers that a continued effort is needed at EU, Member State and stakeholder levels to further facilitate the implementation of legislation on chemicals, notably REACH, and to reflect on specific areas where rules can be simplified and burdens reduced. Horizontal actions: the Commission is determined to further strengthen its horizontal regulatory tools – impact assessment, evaluation and stakeholder consultations and other horizontal actions, notably by putting more emphasis on the assessment of costs and benefits of regulation and the reduction of administrative obligations, such as reporting requirements. Conclusions drawn from the experience: the Commission has drawn several lessons can be drawn from the experience in implementing REFIT thus far. (1) smart regulation and regulatory fitness require a firm political commitment and related adjustment of policies and processes at all levels - within the Commission, between the European institutions and within the Member States; (2) there is a need for scrutiny of the regulatory processes. The Impact Assessment Board has provided an essential quality control function; (3) experience shows that quantification – looking at costs and benefits - is a necessary part of regulatory assessment; (4) transition costs of legislative changes have to be carefully weighed against the costs of inaction; (5) the detection of unnecessary burden and cost by those directly affected by legislation can be an important complement to quantitative assessment. Consultation and debate are therefore essential in this regard. Taking these observations into account, and looking to the future, the Commission will continue to give priority to and keep up the momentum on regulatory fitness. It will continue to focus on areas of significant EU value added respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The Commission will continue to work closely with Parliament and Council to ensure that benefits in simplification and burden reduction are confirmed in the legislative process. It invites input, data and evidence from social partners and stakeholders on the state of play and outlook on REFIT presented in this Communication.
- DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/index_en.htm', 'title': 'Secretariat-General'}, TIMMERMANS Frans
-
COM(2014)0368
summary
Documents
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2014)0368
- Debate in Council: 3353
Amendments | Dossier |
150 |
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
2015/02/05
ENVI
81 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to a simple, clear, harmonised and predictable regulatory framework expressed in the REFIT programme;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees in principle with the aim of cutting red tape and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens; expresses, however, its concern about potential deregulation
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees in principle with the aim of cutting red tape and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens, provided that this is done in such a way that, while a high standard of protection of health and the environment is achieved, the competitiveness of European industry is preserved;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees in principle with the aim of cutting red tape and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens; expresses, however, its concern about potential deregulation, in particular in the fields of the environment, food safety and health, under the guise of ‘cutting red tape’; is concerned about the risk of deregulation associated with the TTIP negotiations and the dangers that this treaty poses to the stringency of applicable standards in the EU;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees in principle with the aim of cutting red tape and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees in principle with the aim of cutting red tape and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens; expresses, however, its concern about potential deregulation, in particular in the fields of the environment, food safety and health, under the guise of ‘cutting red tape’; urges the Commission to take the benefits environmental legislation has on citizens, the economy and the environment fully into account when assessing the administrative burdens of regulations;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees in principle with the aim of cutting red tape and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens; expresses, however, its concern about potential deregulation, in particular in the fields of the environment, food safety and health, under the guise of ‘cutting red tape’; calls on the Commission not to lower its level of ambition and calls for public policy objectives, including environmental and health standards, not to be jeopardised;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Underlines that simpler, smarter regulation leads to consistent transposition and more effective and uniform enforcement by Member States;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses that certain administrative burdens are necessary if the objectives of the legislation and the required level of protection are to be complied with appropriately, in particular with regard to the environment and protection of public health, sectors in which information requirements must be maintained;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Highlights the consistently strong support expressed by European citizens for EU action on the environment; stresses that the work of regulatory simplification (REFIT) in particular in the context of the Commission work programme, must not be taken as a pretext for lowering the level of ambition on issues of vital importance to the protection of the environment;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Is concerned that REFIT takes an unbalanced view of regulation as 'administrative burden', insufficiently acknowledging the positive aspects of regulation;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Believes, to that end, that the Commission should publish provisional impact assessments, in particular to accompany a public consultation, setting out the full range of impacts that the options proposed could have;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Recalls that four Members of the High Level Group on Administrative Burden, those representing the views of workers, public health, the environment and consumers, adopted a dissenting opinion with regard to the Final Report of the High Level Group of 24 July 20141a; ____________ 1ahttp://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=9 3589C92-5056-B741- DBB964D531862603
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Points out that 32 % of administrative burdens of EU origin are the result of the decision of some Member States to go beyond what is required by EU legislation and of the inefficiency in their administrative procedures1a . It is therefore vital to avoid ‘gold-plating’, that is, when transposing EU directives, introducing further requirements and burdens over and above those laid down by EU law. ‘Gold-plating’ increases complexity and the costs which have to be borne by local and regional authorities and public and private companies. An EU-wide definition of ‘gold-plating’ is required, to ensure certainty in the application of EU law and to be able to judge those countries which deny ‘gold- plating’; ______________ 1a COM(2009)544, paragraph 2, p. 6.
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Reminds the Commission, further, of Parliament's requests that the independence of the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) be strengthened, and in particular that members of the IAB must not be subject to political control; considers that the IAB should be composed only of appropriately qualified people who are competent to assess the analysis presented as regards relevant economic, social and environmental impacts;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Opposes the setting of a net target for reducing regulatory costs, as this unnecessarily reduces the range of instruments available for addressing new or unresolved issues, and ignores the corresponding benefits of regulation;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Stresses that a survey of unnecessary burdens and costs by those who are subject to them can be a vital complement to the cost–benefit analysis. That is why consultations and public debate are essential and should be strengthened by the Commission;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 d (new) 3d. Opposes the concept of offsetting new regulatory 'burdens' by removing existing 'burdens'; if an existing rule creates an unnecessary burden or is outdated, it should be removed; if it is serving a useful purpose where the benefits outweigh the burden, it should not be removed, just because a new measure has been taken elsewhere;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 d (new) 3d. Points out that a cost-benefit analysis should be carried out wherever possible, but is not an exact science, as the necessary data cannot always be collected and/or processed. Stresses, moreover, that every change has a cost, even though transition costs are often not taken into due consideration. They should be carefully assessed and compared to the costs of failing to act. The legal certainty requirement also needs to be assessed, in addition to the time required to amend the legislation;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Underlines that when evaluations and fitness checks of environmental, food safety and health legislation are carried out, the impact on the environment
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Underlines that when evaluations and fitness checks of environmental, food safety and health legislation are carried out, environmental and health considerations must be given the same weight as socioeconomic considerations;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Underlines that when evaluations and fitness checks of environmental, food safety and health legislation are carried out, environmental and health considerations must be given at least the same weight as economic considerations;·
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Underlines that when evaluations and fitness checks of environmental, food
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Underlines that when evaluations and fitness checks of environmental, food safety and health legislation are carried out, environmental and health considerations must be given at least the same weight as economic considerations;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Underlines that when evaluations and fitness checks of environmental, food safety and health legislation are carried out, environmental and health considerations
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Underlines that when evaluations and fitness checks of environmental, food safety and health legislation are carried out, qualitative environmental and health considerations must be given the same weight as quantitative economic considerations, all the more as protection of health and the environment is often difficult or even impossible to quantify, unlike business costs; underlines also that costs and benefits are considered not only for the short term, but also for the long term;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses that, when these evaluations and fitness checks are carried out in the case of environmental legislation, account should also be taken of the importance of a level playing field within Europe, with regulations being implemented and complied with in the same way in the various Member States;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Highlights the importance of avoiding legislative duplication;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Supports the continued improvement in impact assessments, ex-ante and ex- post, fostering evidence-based policy- making;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the Commission to strengthen the effectiveness and raise the profile of the EU Pilot mechanism, which is designed to provide quick and exhaustive answers to questions from citizens and businesses on EU legislation. Stresses that most EU Pilot questions concern infringements relating to waste and to environmental impact assessment requirements, which are key areas for public health and the environment;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Reiterates that the Commission has previously acknowledged that environmental standards and progressive regulation do not constitute a hindrance for the economy, but rather an advantage for economic growth and job creation;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Calls on the Commission to review its evaluation guidelines, by stepping up the participation and consultation of stakeholders and using the most direct method in order to enable EU citizens to take part in decision-making;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Emphasises that improving environmental protection creates opportunities for businesses, especially in the context of the transition towards a sustainable green economy with a focus on a more energy self-sufficient Europe;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Emphasises that improving environmental protection creates opportunities for businesses, especially in the context of the transition towards a green economy, but that this must not increase costs for SMEs;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Emphasises that improving regulations and investments in environmental protection creates opportunities for businesses, especially for SMEs in the context of the transition towards a green economy;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Emphasises that improving environmental protection creates opportunities for businesses, especially in the context of the transition towards a green economy, while particularly stressing support for SMEs;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Emphasises that
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the first edition of the annual REFIT scoreboard that allows for the assessment of progress made in all policy areas and of each initiative identified by the Commission, including actions taken by the European Parliament and the Council; believes that the scoreboard should be complemented with an annual statement of net costs and benefits of European legislation adopted and repealed by the European Union, in order to provide a more complete assessment of the progress being made in addressing unnecessary red tape and a recognition by the Commission that often the cumulative cost of regulation is the problem for businesses;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Highlights that risk management and science are the basis for environmental and health protection in EU legislation;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses that the ongoing fitness check of the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) should take socio-economic activities around Nature 2000 areas into account as economic activities are disproportionately hampered, which might prevent new innovations that could contribute towards a more sustainable co-existence of economic activities and address ecological concerns; moreover, differences in national implementation lead to detrimental economic, social and environmental outcomes and distort an European level playing field;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Underlines that the EU's environment policy has stimulated innovation and investment in environmental goods and services, generating jobs and export opportunities;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Notes that the Commission is undertaking a Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives; underlines that these Directives are the cornerstone of Europe's efforts to halt the loss of biodiversity and restore degraded ecosystems and that their regulatory framework is both flexible and modern and is a framework within which business can adapt and operate successfully;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Opposes in this context the opening of the operational provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directives;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes with astonishment and displeasure the Commission’s announcement that it intends to withdraw the proposal on the revision of waste legislation and to modify the proposal on the reduction of national emissions;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes with astonishment the Commission’s announcement that it intends to withdraw the proposal on the revision of waste legislation and to modify the proposal on the reduction of national emissions; deplores the Commission’s announcement to withdraw its proposal on a reviewed energy taxation directive;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes with astonishment the Commission’s announcement that it intends to withdraw the proposals on the revision of the waste legislation and of the transparency on the pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products legislation, and to modify the proposal on the reduction of national emissions;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes with
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Welcomes the Commission’s announcement that, in reviewing existing and planned legislation, it will take account of the particular interests of micro-companies and SMEs and apply lighter regimes to such companies in the form of exemptions and simplifications;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes with astonishment the Commission’s announcement that it intends to withdraw the proposal on the
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to take the outcome of the work of European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Right2Water’ seriously, and to ensure that its proposals are implemented to the general satisfaction of all stakeholders and, in particular, all European citizens;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. considers that the legitimacy of the REFIT programme hinges on separating those issues which pertain to regulatory fitness and efficiency, from the political aim of the regulation and the inherent trade-offs between stakeholders, which is the responsibility of the lawmakers; underlines, with regard to the REFIT actions foreseen in the Commission Work Programme of 2015 Annex 3 in the fields of Climate Action and Energy, Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Health and Food Safety, and Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, the importance of limiting the scope of those actions to simplification and that public policy objectives should not be undermined.
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Recalls the findings of the High Level Group on Administrative Burdens' report "Cutting Red Tape in Europe" which does not list environmental legislation among the most burdensome; urges the Commission to keep these findings in mind when considering to withdraw or withhold further environmental proposals; stresses in this regard that the same report found that environmental regulation only contributes 1% to the total amount of unnecessary administrative burden;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission, in view of the serious and persistent problems which arise in the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, including problems of distortion of competition, to review the scientific basis of this regulation and how useful and realistic it is, and, if appropriate, to eliminate the concept of nutrient profiles or repeal the regulation in its entirety; considers that the aims of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, such as ensuring that information which is provided concerning foods is true and that specific indications are given concerning fat, sugar and salt content, have now been attained by Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission not to do stand-alone and one-sided cumulative cost assessments in addition to REFIT, as intended for example for the most relevant EU legislation and policies relevant for the European chemicals industry, and instead integrate this aspect into the general Fitness Check so as to ensure a balanced approach that also takes into consideration the benefits of the legislation concerned;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Stresses the Commission’s estimate that up to one-third of administrative burden linked to EU legislation stems from national implementing measures or flexible transposition options; calls on the Commission, therefore, in reviewing the legal framework of regulations and directives, to promote a revival of the principle of the common internal market and, wherever possible, to avoid allowing scope for differing national provisions;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Emphasises the Commission's obligation under the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission to provide a detailed explanation in due time before withdrawing any proposals on which Parliament has already expressed a position at first reading, such as is the case for the Transparency Directive on the pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Deplores strongly the fact that the Commission considered withdrawing its proposal for a directive on plastic bags after the conclusion of an agreement by the co-
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Deplores the fact that the Commission
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Reminds the Commission of the prerogatives of the co-legislators in the legislative procedure and urges the Commission to respect the co-legislators
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Reminds the Commission of the prerogatives of the co-legislators in the legislative procedure and
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. 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 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Draws the attention of the Commission to the fact that any deprivation of Intellectual Property Rights – such as banning the use of trademarks – needs to be justified on scientific grounds also having regard to consumers' protection, that any deprivation may not be excessive or disproportionate and that trademarks need to have equal protection throughout Europe.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Believes that where legislation is proposed in a complex and multi-faceted field, a second stage of consultation should be envisaged whereby a draft legislative act is published, accompanied by a provisional impact assessment, for comment by all relevant stakeholders; considers that this second stage would introduce further rigour into the Commission's analysis and strengthen the case for any proposal adopted following this process;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Calls on the Commission to extend the mandate of the High Level Group, which expired on 31 October 2014, ensuring that its members are immune from any kind of conflict of interest and that an MEP from the Committee on Legal Affairs also joins the group;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees
source: 549.141
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52014DC0368:EN
|
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52014DC0368:EN
|
activities/3/date |
Old
2015-05-18T00:00:00New
2015-07-06T00:00:00 |
activities/0/commission/0/DG/title |
Old
Secretariat GeneralNew
Secretariat-General |
other/0/dg/title |
Old
Secretariat GeneralNew
Secretariat-General |
activities/3 |
|
activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
activities/0/commission/0 |
|
other/0 |
|
activities/1/committees/4/shadows/2 |
|
committees/4/shadows/2 |
|
activities/2 |
|
activities/1 |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
JURI/8/01740
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|