2014/2150(INI) | [ParlTrack]

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 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ

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" includeing a mandatory SME test and competitiveness proofing in the revised impact assessment guidelines; stresses the pressing need for better- targeted tools to boost productivity and growth in the EU;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

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~~, and the need to avoid ‘gold-plating’~~; underlines that Member States have the right to decide stricter standards in cases where EU law only provide for minimum levels;

Amendment 19 #

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, and th~~e need to avoid ‘gold-plating’~~at additional innovations introduced by individual States are identified as such;

Amendment 2 #

Igor ŠOLTES

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

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 importance of ensuring the swift and consistent transposition, implementation and enforcement of legislation, alongside the proposed simplification, and the need to avoid ‘gold-plating’; calls on the Commission to include national gold- plating in the EU Regulatory Scoreboard;

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 #

Andreas SCHWAB, Othmar KARAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Calls on the Commission~~Believes that better regulation principles should apply to decisions on secondary legislation as well as primary legislation; calls on the Commission and its agencies where appropriate to accompany delegated and implementing acts with a mandatory impact assessment, including consultation with interested parties and stakeholders, whenever their impact can be expected to be considerable; calls, to that effect, for an amendment of the guidelines for implementing acts in line with the general guidelines for delegated acts; emphasises that co-legislators should be as specific as possible in Tier 1 legislation about what delegated and implementing acts should accomplish; notes that in the European Parliament Resolution of 4 February 2014 on EU Regulatory Fitness and Subsidiarity and Proportionality the Commission was urged to step up its review of the application of the principle of proportionality, especially with regard to the use of Article 290 and 291 TFEU on delegated and implementing acts; also notes that in the same resolution the Parliament called on the Commission to strengthen the role and independence of the Impact Assessment Board (IAB), and in particular only to finalise and present legislative proposals where they have been approved with a favourable opinion by that Board;

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 #

Igor ŠOLTES

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 #

Igor ŠOLTES

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for ~~businesses and stakeholders~~stakeholders, including social partners, consumer protection organisations, environmental and social organisations as well as regional and local authorities, to be more closely involved with subsidiarity checks, administrative burden assessment, and the monitoring of the implementation of EU legislation at national level; ~~welcomes the Commission’s intention to establish a new High Level Group on better regulation under the responsibility of the responsible Vice-Presid~~is firmly against the proposal of the High Level Group on administrative burdens to establish an external high level Better Regulation Advisory Body outside the EU institutions that would be responsible for assessing administrative burden of proposals, cost of compliance, respect for subsidiarity and proportionality, choice of legal base, suggesting better regulation initiatives and monitoring the implementation of EU legislation at national level; believes this option raises serious questions of legitimacy and governance and would strongly undermine the role and legitimacy of the Commission; strongly insists that this responsibility for conducting comprehensive and balanced impact assessment is retained by the Commission under the systematic control of the European Parliament;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for businesses and stakeholders to be more closely involved with checks on subsidiarity ~~checks,~~and proportionality and with administrative burden assessment, the costs generated by compliance with the laws, the choice of legal basis and the monitoring of the implementation of EU legislation at national level; welcomes the Commission’s intention to establish a new High Level Group on better regulation consisting of stakeholders and national experts under the responsibility of the responsible Vice-President; proposes that this group should be given a strong mandate, so that it can be an effective and independent advisory body;

Amendment 32 #

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; wWelcomes the Commission’s intention to establish a new High Level Group on better regulation under the responsibility of the responsible Vice-President;

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; ~~welcomes the Commission’s intention to establish a new High Level Group on better regulation under the responsibility of the responsible Vice-President;~~

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for businesses ~~and stakeholder~~, citizens, consumer organizations and unions to be more closely involved with subsidiarity checks, administrative burden assessment, and the monitoring of the implementation of EU legislation at national level; ~~welcom~~notes the Commission’'s intention to establish a new High Level Group on better regulation under the responsibility of the responsible Vice-President; calls on the commission to respect and follow agreements by the social partners;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for ~~businesses and~~ stakeholders to be more closely involved with subsidiarity checks, and administrative burden assessment~~, and~~; believes that the monitoring of the implementation of EU legislation at national level could be enhanced by the use of peer review by Member States; welcomes the Commission’s intention to establish a new High Level Group on better regulation under the responsibility of the responsible Vice-President;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for ~~businesses and~~all stakeholders to be more closely involved in a balanced manner with subsidiarity checks, administrative burden assessment, and the monitoring of the implementation of EU legislation at national level; welcomes the Commission’s intention to establish a new High Level Group on better regulation under the responsibility of the responsible Vice-President;

Amendment 37 #

Dita CHARANZOVÁ

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~~ich~~ether a non-legislative or 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 as well as administrative costs of any new legislative act should be applied in order to better assess its impact;

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 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; calls on the Commission to ensure that the SME Test and impact assessments are neutral and objective; underlines that all positions should be based on real data and fully cover all the costs and benefits of each policy option on all stakeholders, including SMEs;

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 ~~that feedback could already be given on draft~~it critical that stakeholders have the opportunity, at the earliest stages of the legislative process to comment on unnecessarily burdensome aspects of Commission proposals via a published provisional impact assessments to the Impact Assessment Board, at the stage preceding the final legislative proposal and assessment;

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 assessment, for instance by involving the High-Level Group of experts on better regulation;

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

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to ensure that consultations ~~with~~include all stakeholders ~~are~~while being 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 48 #

Marlene MIZZI

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 #

Marlene MIZZI

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- Europe’);

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that stakeholders and Member States should be more closely involved in identifying implementation difficulties at 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- Europe’); calls for these indicators to include which groups in society benefit most;

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 ~~costs of non-regulation~~savings that may be achieved by having a single market approach (along the lines of the ‘Cost of non- Europe’);

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 #

Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

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 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;

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 ~~a proposed legislative act~~the policy choices in any one area, the questions in consultations need to be both more specific and worded so as to be clearly understandable; where legislation is proposed in a complex field, considers that 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 rigor into the Commission's analysis and strengthen the case for any proposal adopted following this process;

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 #

Gesine MEISSNER, Jan HUITEMA

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~~ and underlines that the REFIT programme should not be used to undermine the environment, food safety ~~and~~, health and consumer rights, under the guise of ‘cutting red tape’; underlines in this regard that the quality of legislation is the appropriate benchmark for evaluation, as opposed to the number of legislative acts; reminds of Member States’ regulatory independence in cases where EU law only provides for minimum standards;

Amendment 11 #

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’~~supports the idea of smart regulation;

Amendment 12 #

József NAGY

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; 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’;

Amendment 13 #

Mireille D'ORNANO, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

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~~believes that, in particular in the fields of the environment, food safety and health, ~~under the guise of ‘cutting red tape’~~'cutting red tape' should deliver proportionate and evidence-based protections for citizens, whilst ensuring that EU businesses can grow, create jobs and boost competitiveness; notes that deregulation and better regulation are not mutually exclusive;

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 #

Marco AFFRONTE, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Agrees ~~in principle~~ with the aim of cutting unnecessary red tape and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens; expresses, however, its strong concern about ~~potential~~REFIT serving also as a tool to achieve deregulation, in particular in the fields of the environment, food safety and health, under the guise of ‘cutting red tape’;

Amendment 16 #

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~~calls strongly for the REFIT programme not to be used as a pretext for applying deregulation measures, in particular in the fields of the environment, food safety and health, uand~~er the guise of ‘cutting red tape’~~ measures to exclude from decision- making processes non-governmental organisations, citizens’ associations and committees representing local interests concerning the protection of the environment, public health and consumers;

Amendment 17 #

Jo LEINEN, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Bas EICKHOUT, Catherine BEARDER, Seb DANCE

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. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s commitment to a simple, clear and predictable regulatory framework expressed in the REFIT programme; calls on the Commission not to lower its level of ambition with regard to key public policy objectives including environmental protection, food safety and consumer rights, safety at work, gender equality and labour rights;

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 #

Jo LEINEN, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Catherine BEARDER, Bas EICKHOUT, Seb DANCE

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’'s commitment to a simple, clear and predictable regulatory framework expressed in the REFIT programme; underlines that the work foreseen in the REFIT Communication should be part of 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 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 environmental and health ~~considerations must be given the same weight as economic~~must be taken into considerations;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 33 #

Lampros FOUNTOULIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 34 #

Jean-François JALKH, Mireille D'ORNANO, Sylvie GODDYN, Joëlle MÉLIN

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 economic considerations; points out 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;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 36 #

Marco AFFRONTE, Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Underlin~~Acknowledges that when evaluations and fitness checks of environmental, food safety and health legislation are carried out, robust scientific evidence detailing the potential impacts on the environmental and health ~~considerations must be given the same weight a~~must be considered alongside evidence on potential economic impacts, in equivalence with analysis econ~~omic consideration~~ducted under the impact assessment procedures;

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 ~~must be given the same weight as economic considerations~~should always take precedence over economic considerations, in compliance with the precautionary principle, the preventive action principle and the ‘polluter pays’ principle;

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. ~~Welcom~~Notes 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;

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 #

Jo LEINEN, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Bas EICKHOUT, Catherine BEARDER, Seb DANCE

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 #

Tom VANDENKENDELAERE

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 #

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ

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 #

József NAGY

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 ~~improving~~high-level environmental and public health protection creates innovations and opportunities for businesses and therefore benefits the European economy, especially in the context of the transition towards a green economy;

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 #

Jan HUITEMA, Gesine MEISSNER

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 #

Jo LEINEN, Bas EICKHOUT, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Catherine BEARDER, Seb DANCE

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 #

Jo LEINEN, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Catherine BEARDER, Bas EICKHOUT, Seb DANCE

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 #

Jo LEINEN, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Catherine BEARDER, Bas EICKHOUT, Seb DANCE

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 #

Lampros FOUNTOULIS

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

Amendment 58 #

José Inácio FARIA

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 #

Jean-François JALKH, Mireille D'ORNANO, Sylvie GODDYN, Joëlle MÉLIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes with ~~astonishment~~concern 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 6 #

Renate SOMMER

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. ~~Notes with astonishment~~Regrets 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; notes that this withdrawal undermines the momentum generated by the Member States in the direction of a circular economy;

Amendment 61 #

Simona BONAFÈ, Giovanni LA VIA, Karl-Heinz FLORENZ, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Davor ŠKRLEC, Mark DEMESMAEKER, Eleonora EVI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Notes with astonishment the Commission’s announcement that it intends~~Is opposed to the Commission’s intention to withdraw the proposal on the revision of waste legislation in the name of 'better regulation' and to modify the proposal on the reduction of national emissions;

Amendment 62 #

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 fact that the proposal for the two withdrawals was announced without presenting any analysis or evidence to justify it nor was there any preceding consultation with the co-legislators and stakeholders; stresses the Commission´s announced commitment, as stipulated in its Work Programme 2015, to consider the view of the European Parliament and the Council before finalising its decision on its Working Programme 2015, especially the withdrawal of legislation; therefore underlines the fact that in several votes in plenary the majority of MEPs expressed their support for maintaining the Circular Economy package unchanged on the table; emphasises in this context the need to proceed with the work on the package as scheduled in order to avoid further waste of time and resources;

Amendment 63 #

Kateřina KONEČNÁ

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 #

Jo LEINEN, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Bas EICKHOUT, Catherine BEARDER, Seb DANCE

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 #

Renate SOMMER

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 #

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Expects~~Calls on the Commission to carry out a structured consultation, including with the European Parliament, prior to the announcement of any withdrawal of a Commission proposal;

Amendment 69 #

Jean-François JALKH, Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Mireille D'ORNANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Expects the Commission to carry out a structured consultation, including with the European Parliament, prior to the announcement of any withdrawal of a Commission proposal~~Recognises that the right of initiative conferred upon the Commission extends to include a right to withdraw proposals; believes that proposals which have failed to have been agreed by co-legislators should not be simply repackaged, but should be the subject of a more thorough analysis in order to identify smarter solutions which build upon practices that have proven successful in the Member States or further afield; considers such proposals should be accompanied by supporting evidence, in line with a scientific approach towards policy- making;

Amendment 7 #

Renate SOMMER

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. ~~Expects~~Hopes that the Commission towill carry out a structured consultation, including with the European Parliament, ~~prior to the announcement of any withdrawal of a Commission proposal~~at each stage of the legislative process;

Amendment 71 #

José Inácio FARIA

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

~~8. Deplores the fact that the Commission considered withdrawing its proposal for a directive on plastic bags after the conclusion of an agreement by the co- legislators;~~deleted

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Deplores~~Takes note of the fact that the Commission considered withdrawing its proposal for a directive on plastic bags after the conclusion of an agreement by the co- legislators;

Amendment 74 #

Lampros FOUNTOULIS

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- legislators;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Deplores the fact that the Commission ~~considered withdrawing its proposal for a~~did not act as a facilitator in the negotiations over a new directive on plastic bags, a~~fter~~nd even threatened publicly to withdraw its proposal shortly before the conclusion of an agreement by the co- legislators in the name of 'better regulation';

Amendment 76 #

Jean-François JALKH, Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Mireille D'ORNANO

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’' right to amend Commission proposals.; also recalls the co-legislators’ responsibility to adhere to principles of better regulation, and in particular the inter-institutional agreements that exist between the institutions; further considers that a revision of the inter-institutional agreement on better law-making is overdue and welcomes initiatives by the Commission to begin negotiations to update this agreement;

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Reminds the Commission of the prerogatives of the co-legislators in the legislative procedure and ~~urge~~exhorts the Commission to respect the co-legislators’ right to amend Commission proposals.

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 #

Tibor SZANYI

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. ~~Agrees in principle with~~Supports 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’;~~

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 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Lynn BOYLAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

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 #

Mara BIZZOTTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

source: 549.141

2015/03/30 EMPL 161 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

~~1. Recognises that REFIT represents a first step towards reducing the burden of regulation on businesses and eliminating barriers to growth and job creation;~~deleted

Amendment 10 #

Claude ROLIN, Ivo BELET, Georges BACH, Pascal ARIMONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that REFIT represents a first step towards ~~reducing the burden of~~simplifying regulation onfor businesses and eliminating barriers to growth and job creation;

Amendment 100 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for further measures to ~~check that legislation is doing what it was intended to do~~ensure effective monitoring and enforcement of legislation and to ide~~ntify area~~al with damaging loopholes where therey ar~~e inconsistencies and ineffective measures~~ise;

Amendment 101 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for ~~further measure~~ex-post assessments to check that legislation is doing what it was intended to do and to identify areas where ~~there are inc~~legislations is~~tencies and ineffective measures;~~ not having the intended effect;

Amendment 102 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for further measures to check that legislation is doing what it was intended to do and to identify areas where ~~there are inconsistencies and ineffective measu~~more should be done at the EU level. Calls on the Commission to come forward with legislative proposals in these areas;

Amendment 103 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for ~~further measure~~better impact assessments to check that legislation is doing what it was intended to do and to identify areas where there are inconsistencies and ~~ineffective measures~~room for improvement; stresses at the same time the need for better enforcement of current legislation;

Amendment 104 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Lynn BOYLAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Calls for further measures~~Supports continuous work to check that legislation is doing what it was intended to do and to identify areas where there are inconsistencies and ineffective measures;

Amendment 105 #

Ulla TØRNÆS, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Pavel TELIČKA, Ivo VAJGL, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Marian HARKIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for further measures such as carrying out independent impact assessments throughout the legislative process, further strengthening the independence, objectivity and neutrality of impact assessments and the SME-test, further facilitating citizens participation in the EUs legislative process, ensuring the adaptability of legislators and increasing transparency of inter- institutional negotiations as well as monitoring the transposition of the EU- legislation into national laws by including national gold-plating in the EU Regulatory Scoreboard to check that legislation is doing what it was intended to do and to identify areas where there are inconsistencies and ineffective measures;

Amendment 106 #

Sven SCHULZE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for improved regulatory impact assessment and greater transparency with regard to the extent to which draft laws take account of comments submitted during consultations by the people who will be affected by those laws, along with further measures to check that legislation is doing what it was intended to do and to identify areas where there are inconsistencies and ineffective measures ;

Amendment 107 #

Claude ROLIN, Ivo BELET, Georges BACH, Pascal ARIMONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for further measures to check that legislation is doing what it was intended to do and to identify areas where there are inconsistencies and ineffective measures; calls also for impact assessments to take account of the social and environmental impact, as well as the economic impact;

Amendment 108 #

Jeroen LENAERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for further measures to check that legislation is doing what it was intended to do and to identify areas where there are inconsistencies and ineffective measures; calls furthermore, as part of the lawmaking process, for particular attention to be paid in this connection to consequences for cross-border regions;

Amendment 109 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for further measures to check that legislation is doing what it was intended to do and to identify areas where there are inconsistencies and ineffective measures; as a consequence legislation needs to be better enforced;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls for REFIT to focus less on reducing regulation and concentrate on quality legislation and its ability to protect and promote the interests of EU citizens. Impact assessments should also evaluate the social and environmental consequences of non-legislation and its impact on the fundamental rights of citizens at EU level. Financial cost-benefit analysis should not be the only criteria applied. When fitness checks are carried out, fundamental rights and employment and health and safety considerations should be given the same weight as financial considerations, and when there is conflict, fundamental rights must take precedence;

Amendment 110 #

Claude ROLIN, Georges BACH, Pascal ARIMONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

~~7. Urges the Commission to continue to improve the legislative cycle and to introduce sunset clauses to ensure that employment legislation is periodically reviewed;~~deleted

Amendment 111 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

~~7. Urges the Commission to continue to improve the legislative cycle and to introduce sunset clauses to ensure that employment legislation is periodically reviewed;~~deleted

Amendment 112 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

~~7. Urges the Commission to continue to improve the legislative cycle and to introduce sunset clauses to ensure that employment legislation is periodically reviewed;~~deleted

Amendment 113 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Urges the Commission to continue to improve the legislative cycle ~~and to introduce sunset clauses to ensure that employment legislation is periodically reviewed~~;

Amendment 114 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Urges the Commission to continue to improve the legislative cycle and to ~~introduce sunset clauses to~~ ensure that employment legislation is periodically ~~review~~further strengthened;

Amendment 115 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Urges the Commission to continue to improve the legislative cycle and ~~to introduce sunset clauses to ensure that employment legislation is periodically reviewed~~where appropriate to propose review clauses;

Amendment 116 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Urges the Commission to continue to improve the legislative cycle and ~~to introduce sunset clause~~be more ambitious to ensure that employment legislation is ~~periodically review~~in the core of the EU agenda and responding to the citizens' needs;

Amendment 117 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Lynn BOYLAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Urges the Commission to continue to improve the legislative cycle and to ~~introduce sunset clauses to~~ ensure that employment legislation is ~~periodically reviewed~~reviewed whenever necessary;

Amendment 118 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Urges the Commission to continue to improve the legislative ~~cycle and to introduce sunset~~protection of workers via employment and Health and Safety standards and that revision clauses to ensure that employment legislation is periodically reviewed;

Amendment 119 #

Ulla TØRNÆS, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Pavel TELIČKA, Marian HARKIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Urges the Commission and co- legislators to continue to improve the legislative cycle and to introduce sunset clauses when justified and useful in concrete cases to ensure that employment legislation is periodically reviewed;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. 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 20141; 1 http://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=93589C92 -5056-B741-DBB964D531862603

Amendment 120 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Warns against the implementation of sunset clauses in legislation as they risk to create legal uncertainty and legislative discontinuity;

Amendment 121 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Believes that better regulation principles should apply to decisions on secondary legislation as well as primary legislation; calls on the Commission to take appropriate steps to ensure all implementing and delegated acts in the area of employment and social affairs are open for wider scrutiny in a simple, clear and transparent manner;

Amendment 122 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Opposes the setting of a net target for reducing regulatory costs, as this ignores the aim pursued by regulation and its corresponding benefits;

Amendment 123 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 124 #

Claude ROLIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 125 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 126 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 127 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission ~~to prioritise action in the fields of what have been identified as the ‘Top Ten’ most burdensome laws for SMEs, including the working time and temporary agency directive~~, after 'Top Ten', to seek wider range of cooperation with different stakeholders, e.g. social partners and enterprises, to find ways to create jobs and to reduce burdens of SMEs;

Amendment 128 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission to prioritise action in the field~~s of what have been identified as the ‘Top Ten’ most burdensome laws for SMEs, including the w~~ the 'Top Ten' most burdensome laws for SMEs consultation, starting with a review of its methodology to not consider a priori that any legislation is a burden for companies ; Is concerned about the results of this consultation highlighting very important workers' protection legislations such as the directives on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work or on Working time, a~~nd temporary agency directive~~s too burdensome on SMEs legislations;

Amendment 129 #

Claude ROLIN, Georges BACH, Pascal ARIMONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission to prioritise action in the fields of ~~what have been identified as the ‘Top Ten’ most burdensome laws for SMEs~~implementation of legislation concerning casual work such as the temporary agency directive and health and safety legislation, including the working time ~~and temporary agency~~ directives;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that the improvement of regulation should be on the basis of quality, not quantity;

Amendment 130 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Lynn BOYLAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission ~~to prioritise action in the fields of what have been identified as~~not to use the ‘Top Ten’ most burdensome laws for SMEs~~, including~~ as justification to review the working time and temporary agency directives; because the protection of workers must be guaranteed regardless whether the workplace is in a small, medium sized or large enterprise.

Amendment 131 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission to prioritise action in the fields ~~of w~~that have been identified as the ~~‘Top Ten’~~ most burdensome laws for SMEs~~, including the working time and temporary agency directives~~;

Amendment 132 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission to prioritise action in the fields of what have been identified as the ‘Top Ten’ most burdensome laws for SMEs~~, including the working time and temporary agency directives~~;

Amendment 133 #

Ulla TØRNÆS, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 134 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission to prioritise action in the fields of what have been identified as the ‘Top Ten’ most burdensome laws for SMEs, micro- enterprises and start-ups, including the working time and temporary agency directives as well as national legislation which fragments the European Single Market;

Amendment 135 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Lynn BOYLAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission to prioritise action in the fields of what have been identified as the ‘Top Ten’ most burdensome laws for SMEs, including the working time and temporary agency directives; is also concerned about the threats posed by the implementation of the REACH directive on employment in European SMEs in the chemical industry; calls for balanced solutions to be found between the protection of workers and unnecessary administrative burdens for SMEs;

Amendment 136 #

Sofia RIBEIRO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls on the Commission to persist in its negotiations, at Council level, on combating late payments in commercial transactions, on company accounting requirements, on the collection of statistics, on coordination on VAT and simplification of VAT obligations, and on common rules to calculate the corporate tax base;

Amendment 137 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. There are no satisfactory criteria to measure "efficiency" and "costs; these terms are not adequate in terms of occupational accidents and disease. This could lead to decisions taken by administration and controllers thereby circumventing the legitimate democratic legislators;

Amendment 138 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Calls on the European Parliament to systematically review Commission impact assessments and review IMPAs analysis as early as possible in the legislative process, and to call for impact assessments on its own reports.

Amendment 139 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls on the social partners to embrace better regulation tools, to increase the use of impact assessments in their negotiations and refer agreements proposing legislative action to the Commissions Impact Assessment Board;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Insists that better regulation should focus on the quality and not quantity of legislation by prioritising the aim and purpose for which obligations were put in place and make society benefitting at large;

Amendment 140 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Reiterates Parliaments calls for an ambitious burden reduction target of 30% to be introduced in the costs to SMEs and microenterprises by administrative and regulatory burdens by 2020;

Amendment 141 #

Agnes JONGERIUS, Marita ULVSKOG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Opposes the setting of a net target for reducing regulatory costs, as this ignores the aim pursued by regulation and its corresponding benefits;

Amendment 142 #

Jutta STEINRUCK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8c. Stresses that EU directives are meant to be implemented by Member States through national legislation; underlines that according to the Commission one third of the regulatory and administrative burden of EU legislation is a result of transposition measures undertaken by the Member States which do not flow from the legislation itself (also known as gold- plating); calls on the Commission to closely monitor the implementation of directives by Member States as regards gold-plating and to consider making greater use of regulations instead of directives, in order to have more consistent legislation and minimize gold- plating;

Amendment 143 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)

Amendment 144 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

Amendment 145 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the committee responsible to systematically review Commission impact assessments and review IMPA’s analysis as early as possible in the legislative process, and to call for impact assessments on its own reportsUrges Parliament’s specialist committees to make more consistent use of in-house impact assessment instruments, particularly where substantial changes to the original Commission proposal are being envisaged.

Amendment 146 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the committee ~~responsible to systematically~~to review Commission impact assessments ~~and review IMPA’s analysis~~ as early as possible in the legislative process~~, and to call for impact assessments on its own reports~~ to ensure they have taken due consideration of the social and employment impact.

Amendment 147 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the committee responsible to systematically review Commission impact assessments and review IMPA’'s analysis as early as possible in the legislative process, and to ~~call for~~process to its own impact assessments on its own reports on a case by case basis, if changing the substance of the Commission proposals and if the Council fulfils its 2003 "better regulation" Inter Institutional Agreement commitment to conducting impact assessment of its amendments, as the European Parliament did.

Amendment 148 #

Ulla TØRNÆS, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Pavel TELIČKA, Marian HARKIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the committee responsible to systematically review Commission impact assessments and review IMPA’s analysis as early as possible in the legislative process, and to call for impact assessments on its own reports. in order to ensure that there is a real positive impact on employment and social affairs in the Member States;

Amendment 149 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Underlines that when evaluations and regulatory fitness checks of legislation are carried out, fundamental and social rights should be given more weight over economic considerations;

Amendment 150 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

Amendment 151 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 (new)

In the area of public procurement, strongly supports further measures such as the promotion of smaller procurement parcels to assist SMEs and micro enterprises to compete for public procurement tenders.

Amendment 152 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Stresses, however, the limitations of these impact assessments which, even if conducted for each legislative proposal, will not prevent the introduction of regulations and directives which may have a serious adverse impact on employment and social affairs in the Member States.

Amendment 153 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Lynn BOYLAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Stresses that EU legislation sets only minimum standards which can be improved by Member States through national legislation; emphasises that the Commission focus on 'gold-plating' as a negative practice for employment legislation runs contrary to the principles of the EU Treaty, including Article 151 for the protection and improvement of living and working conditions.

Amendment 154 #

Claude ROLIN, Ivo BELET, Georges BACH, Pascal ARIMONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Stresses that REFIT can in no way provide an excuse to question or refuse to recognise collective agreements that have been independently concluded by the social partners, nor may it hamper the development of consultation and social dialogue.

Amendment 155 #

Amjad BASHIR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on the Commission to set annual targets to alleviate the problem of excessive administration for SMEs such as a burden reduction target.

Amendment 156 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. "Simplification" and "burden reduction" are void of meaning in a situation which is ever more complex. New technologies and procedures could endanger the health of workers with requires new protection and this may be administrative burdens.

Amendment 157 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Questions the balance of representation of the High Level Group of Administrative Burdens (HLG) and its recommendations (24 July 2014), rejects its recommendations and asks for recognition of the Dissenting Opinion of four members of the HLG;

Amendment 158 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Reiterates the request of the European Parliament1 to establish a new High Level Group on Better Regulation, consisting of stakeholders’ representatives and national experts; this group should be visible and independent; proposes that the High Level Group should assess the administrative burden caused by legislative proposals throughout the negotiations, the cost of compliance and respect for the subsidiarity and proportionality principles; this group should also propose measures to improve regulation and supervise the implementation of EU legislation at national level. __________________ 1 European Parliament resolution of 27 November 2014 on the revision of the Commission’s impact assessment guidelines and the role of the SME test (2014/2967(RSP))

Amendment 159 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Urges the Commission to better assess the social and environmental consequences, as well as the impact of its policy on the fundamental rights of citizens, by keeping in mind the cost of non-legislation at European level as well as the fact that cost-benefit analyses are only one of many criteria.

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Hopes, however, that the lighter EU laws proposed and applied by the Commission will not be called into question during the TTIP discussions;

Amendment 160 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Is convinced that sound impact assessments constitute an important tool to support decision-making and play a significant role in better regulation; underlines, however, that such assessments cannot substitute for political assessments and decisions;

Amendment 161 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)

9c. Questions the conversion of the Commission's Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into a 'Regulatory Scrutiny Board' and stresses the need for transparency and independence regarding this process.

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Support~~Notes the Commission’'s ~~commitment~~intention onf cutting unnecessary red tape and better regulation; believes that ~~cutting red tape should deliver proportionate, evidence- based~~, full protection for workers~~, while ensur~~ should remaing th~~at businesses can grow, create jobs and boost competitiveness; notes that deregulation and better regulation are not mutually exclusive;~~e highest priority,

Amendment 19 #

Claude ROLIN, Ivo BELET, Georges BACH, Pascal ARIMONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Supports the Commission’s commitment on cutting red tape and better regulation; ~~beli~~fears, howevesr, that cutting red tape should deliver proportionate, evidence-based protection for workers, while ensuring that businesses can grow, create jobs and boost competitiveness; notes that deregulation and better regulation are not mutually exclusivewill lead to deregulation, in particular as regards legislation on employment and health and safety at work; stresses that this improvement of regulation should encourage the development of businesses, make them more competitive and create jobs, whilst ensuring that employees have sufficient and appropriate protection;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

~~1. Recognises that REFIT represents a first step towards reducing the burden of regulation on businesses and eliminating barriers to growth and job creation;~~deleted

Amendment 20 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Lynn BOYLAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Supports in principle the Commission’'s commitment on cutting red tape and better regulation; believes that cutting red tape should deliver proportionate, evidence- based protection for workers, while ensuring that businesses can grow, create jobs and boost competitiveness; notes that deregulation and better regulation are not mutually exclusiveto better regulation; emphasises, however, its concern about the threat of deregulation, in particular in the fields of employment and health and safety legislation, under the guise of 'cutting red tape', and the importance of the precautionary principle in these areas;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Supports the Commission’s commitment on cutting red tape ~~and better regulation~~; believes that cutting ~~red~~ tape should deliver proportionate, evidence-based protection for workers, while ensuring that businesses can grow, create jobs and boost competitiveness; notes that deregulation and better regulation are not mutually exclusivebe evidence-based and under no circumstances diminish the protection for workers;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Supports the Commission’s commitment on cutting red tape and better regulation; believes that cutting red tape ~~should deliver proportionate, evidence-based protection for workers, whil~~must not lead to reduced protection for workers, and that it should at the same time ensur~~ing~~e that businesses can grow~~, create jobs~~ and boost competitiveness~~; notes that deregulation and better regulation are not mutually exclusive~~, in order to create high- quality permanent jobs;

Amendment 23 #

Anne SANDER, Elisabeth MORIN-CHARTIER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Support~~Acknowledges the Commission’'s commitment on cutting red tape and better regulation; believes that cutting red tape should ~~deliver proportionate, evidence- based~~not reduce protection for workers, while ensuring that businesses can grow, create jobs and boost competitiveness; notes that deregulation ~~and better regulation are not mutually exclusive~~should not be the hidden objective behind better regulation;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Supports the Commission’s commitment on cutting red tape and better regulation; believes that ~~cutting red tape should deliver proportionate, evidence-based protection for workers, while ensuring that~~better regulation that is clearer, more effective and with less red tape would enable businesses ~~can~~to grow, to create jobs and to boost competitiveness~~; notes that deregulation and better regulation are not mutually exclusive~~, without calling into question a good level of protection for workers;

Amendment 25 #

Ulla TØRNÆS, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Pavel TELIČKA, Ivo VAJGL, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Marian HARKIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Supports the Commission’s commitment on cutting red tape and for providing better regulation; welcomes the effort of the Juncker Commission to a strengthened Better Regulation Agenda and calls for the need for it to deliver an efficient system and actual progress; believes that cutting red tape should aim to deliver proportionate, evidence-based protection for workers, while ensuring that businesses can grow, create jobs and boost competitiveness; notes that debetter regulation and ~~better regulation~~high protection of employees are not mutually exclusive;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Supports the Commission’s commitment on cutting red tape and better regulation; believes that cutting red tape should deliver ~~proportionate, evidence-based~~ protection for workers, while ensuring that businesses can grow, create jobs and boost competitiveness; ~~notes that deregulation and better regulation are not mutually exclusive;~~

Amendment 27 #

Jeroen LENAERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Supports the Commission’s commitment on cutting red tape and better regulation; believes that cutting red tape should deliver proportionate, evidence-based protection for workers, while ensuring that businesses can grow, create jobs and boost competitiveness; calls in the process for particular attention to be paid to cutting red tape for young and start-up entrepreneurs so that they gain the confidence to be enterprising; notes that deregulation and better regulation are not mutually exclusive;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Considers REFIT a first step towards reducing unnecessary regulatory burden and eliminating barriers to growth and job creation; stresses however that 'better regulation' must not be used as pretext for deregulation in order to subvert worker's or consumer's rights;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Points to the horizontal clauses in Article 9 and 11 of the TFEU, which shall be taken into account when defining and implementing policies and activities at EU level; underlines the need to not only assess financial factors and short-term effects but also the long-term value of legislation, such as the reduction of adverse health effects or the preservation of ecosystems, which are often difficult to quantify; deplores that as a consequence, social and environmental benefits and costs are often not taken into account;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Recognises that REFIT represents a first step towards reducing the burden of regulation on businesses and eliminating barriers to growth and~~Expresses strong concerns about REFIT serving as a tool to achieve deregulation without acknowledging the positive aspects of regulation and taking full account of the benefits of regulation in social or other terms, or the fact that in many instances, EU legislation harmonizes or replaces different rules in the 28 Member States, making national markets mutually and equally accessible and reducing administrative costs overall to realize a fully functional internal market. Recognises that REFIT should represent a step towards job creation;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Is worried, that the large number of Commission initiatives and titles regarding 'better regulation' is leading to confusion for citizens and businesses;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2d. Urges the Commission to provide clear definitions regarding REFIT related activities such as 'evaluation', 'simplification', 'consolidation' and 'targeted review' of existing legislation in order to ensure greater transparency;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Welcomes efforts to identify genuine opportunities for simplification of legislation; s~~Stresses the need for ~~simpler,~~ clearly-worded ~~rules that remove complexity and can be implemented in a simple manner in order to improve compliance, particularly in the area of health, safety and employment legislation~~legislation in order to facilitate compliance;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes efforts to ~~identify genuine opportunities for simplification of legislation; stresses the need for simpler, clearly-worded~~simplify the legislative procedure as a whole; stresses the need for rules that are~~move complexity and can be implemented in a simple manner in order to~~ clear and comprehensible to all, so that they can be quickly and easily implemented, thereby improveing compliance~~, particularly in the area of health, safety and employment legislation~~. That is how we will support our businesses more effectively and better protect our workers;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes efforts to identify genuine opportunities for simplification of legislation; stresses the need for ~~simpler,~~ clearly- worded rules that ~~remove complexity and~~ can be implemented in a simple manner in order to improve compliance~~, particularly in the area of health, safety and employment legislation~~. Points out that the widespread existing use of exemptions and exceptions under EU legislation is itself a major contributing factor to regulatory complexity;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes efforts to identify genuine opportunities for simplification of legislation; stresses the need for simpler, clearly-worded rules ~~that remove complexity and can be implemented in a simple manner in order to improve compliance, particularly~~, including in the area of health, safety and employment legislation;

Amendment 36 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Lynn BOYLAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes efforts to identify genuine opportunities for simplification of legislation; stresses the need for simpler, clearly-worded rules that ~~remove complexity and~~ can be implemented in a simple manner in order to improve compliance, particularly in the area of health, safety and employment legislation;

Amendment 38 #

Ulla TØRNÆS, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Pavel TELIČKA, Ivo VAJGL, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Marian HARKIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes efforts to identify genuine opportunities for simplification ~~of legislation~~and adaptability of legislation whilst maintaining high standards; stresses the need for simpler, clearly-worded rules that remove complexity and can be implemented in a simple manner in order to improve compliance, particularly in the area of health, safety and employment legislation; recalls the importance of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes efforts to identify genuine opportunities for simplification of legislation; stresses the need for simpler, clearly-worded rules that remove complexity and can be implemented in a simple manner in order to improve compliance, particularly in the area of health, safety and employment legislation; notes with concern, however, that four members of the High Level Group on Administrative Burdens opposed several of the Group's conclusions presented in its final report and produced a dissenting opinion; expects the Commission to take into account the concerns of all parties involved;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Recognises that REFIT represents a first step towards reducing the burden of regulation on businesses and eliminating barriers to growth and job cre~~Welcomes the Commission’s REFIT communication and considers REFIT to be an important instrument for better regulation;

Amendment 40 #

Ivo BELET, Claude ROLIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes efforts to identify genuine opportunities for simplification of legislation; stresses the need for simpler, clearly-worded rules that remove complexity and can be implemented in a simple manner in order to improve compliance, particularly in the area of health, safety and employment legislation; underlines that social dialogue and social impact assessments in accordance with art. 9 TFEU and art. 152 TFEU shall be taken into account when defining and implementing policies at EU level;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Stresses the need, moreover, to apply the ‘Think Small First’ principle, which should underpin all rules, given that around 99% of European businesses are SMEs. By adhering to this principle, European legislation should no longer cause additional administrative and regulatory burdens that all too often impede the proper functioning of our SMEs, hinder their competitiveness and restrict their capacity for innovation and job creation; European legislation should, on the contrary, be a pillar for their development, ensuring they have regulatory stability and legal certainty;

Amendment 42 #

Ulla TØRNÆS, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Ivo VAJGL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Welcomes the principle ‘Think Small First’, used by the Commission, which gives priority to SMEs and their interests;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses the need for a bottom-up approach to better regulation; therefore calls on the Commission to establish a "European Stakeholder Forum" on better regulation and less bureaucracy with a quantitative goal of reducing administrative burdens by 20 % by 2020; emphasizes that the Forum shall consist of relevant stakeholders, including official representatives from the civil society, the social partners, consumer organizations and the business community especially SME's which represent 80 % of European job-creation, stresses that proposals from this forum should be actively considered by the Commission, and that the Commission should address the proposals in accordance with the "comply or explain principle; believes the Forum could serve as a platform for businesses or collective groups working both nationally or across Europe to submit inputs supporting the better regulation principles or contributing to achieving less bureaucracy in the regulation applying in their sector;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Considers that, where the need for action at EU level in the area of employment and social affairs has been clearly identified and fully respects the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, that a set of indicators to identify the full compliance costs as well as administrative costs of any such legislative act should be applied in order to better assess its impact;

Amendment 45 #

Amjad BASHIR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls that gold-plating by the Member States can add complexity to regulation and further reduce compliance; Recommends that Member States avoid adding to the administrative burden when transposing EU legislation to national law as a complementary action to the REFIT programme;

Amendment 46 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Lynn BOYLAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that smart regulation must comply with the social dimension of the internal market as provided for by the Treaty; underlines that the REFIT agenda should not be used in order to undermine agreements reached by social partners at the European level; stresses that the autonomy of social partners needs to be respected; recalls that Article 155 of the TFEU guarantees that social partner agreements become European legislation at the joint request of the signatory parties; welcomes in this respect the statement by Commission President Juncker that the social market economy can only work if there is social dialogue and that he would like to be a President of social dialogue;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Insists that legislation on employment and Health & Safety represents minimum standards of protection of workers which Member States can go beyond. The EU legislation will not be interpreted as maximum standards in situations in which these regulations can be seen as obstacles for competition in the single market;

Amendment 48 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Lynn BOYLAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Insists that a worker have the right to occupational health and safety protection and minimum working conditions regardless whether the workplace is in a small, medium-sized or large enterprise.

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

~~4. Welcomes the Commission’s indication that the maternity leave directive should be considered for withdrawal;~~deleted

Amendment 5 #

Anne SANDER, Elisabeth MORIN-CHARTIER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that REFIT represents a ~~first step towards reducing the burden of regulation on businesses and eliminating barriers to growth and job creation;~~ welcome effort to ensure that European legislation serves its purpose efficiently, without unnecessary burden on European citizens and businesses and reduces administrative burden when European legislation replaces 28 national legislation benefiting especially SMEs operating cross-border;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

~~4. Welcomes the Commission’s indication that the maternity leave directive should be considered for withdrawal;~~deleted

Amendment 51 #

Claude ROLIN, Ivo BELET, Pascal ARIMONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

~~4. Welcomes the Commission’s indication that the maternity leave directive should be considered for withdrawal;~~deleted

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

~~4. Welcomes the Commission’s indication that the maternity leave directive should be considered for withdrawal;~~deleted

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

~~4. Welcomes the Commission’s indication that the maternity leave directive should be considered for withdrawal;~~deleted

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcomes~~Remains strongly opposed to the Commission’'s in~~dica~~tention t~~hat the maternity leave directive should be considered~~o withdraw a number of legislative proposals, in particular the directive on musculoskeletal disorders and the revision of the carcinogens directive; deplores the fact that the proposal for the withdrawals was announced without justification and in the absence of consultation with the partners involved;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcomes the Commis~~Draws attention to Parliament‘s decision’s ~~indication that the maternity leave directive should be considered for withdrawal~~of 15 January 2015 not to withdraw the maternity leave directive;

Amendment 56 #

Maria ARENA, Siôn SIMON, Javi LÓPEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcome~~Deeply regrets the Commission’'s indication that the maternity leave directive should be considered for withdrawal; calls also on the Council to speed up the adoption of the directive concerning the implementation of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of pregnant workers, workers who have recently given birth and women who are breastfeeding and reiterates the European Parliament's will to negotiate in a pragmatic way;

Amendment 57 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Lynn BOYLAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcome~~Regrets the Commission’'s indication that the maternity leave directive ~~should~~might be considered for withdrawal; reiterates its call on Member States to do their utmost to reach an agreement on this health and safety legislation without delay;

Amendment 58 #

Sofia RIBEIRO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcom~~Urges the Commission~~’s indication that the maternity leave directive should be considered for withdrawal;~~ to resume discussions with the European Parliament and the Council on maternity leave, and highlights the need to include paternity and parental leave, with equal rights for both parents, as a key factor in combating gender discrimination at the workplace;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcomes~~Calls on the Commission~~’s indication that~~ to continue negotiations on the maternity leave directive ~~should be considered for withdrawal~~;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that REFIT represents a ~~first~~ step towards reducing ~~the burden of regulation on businesse~~barriers to growth and job creation but insists that it should not be used as and e~~liminating barriers to growth and job creation~~xcuse for delaying vital legislation in the interest of European citizens;

Amendment 60 #

Ulla TØRNÆS, Pavel TELIČKA, Martina DLABAJOVÁ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcom~~Deplores the Commission’s indication that the maternity leave directive should be considered for withdrawal;

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s indication that the maternity leave directive shcould be considered for withdrawal; underlines that any new proposal from the Commission in this area must be in full compliance with the principle of subsidiarity;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the Commission’s indication in their Work Programme 2015 that the maternity leave directive should be considered for withdrawal; Believes that considerations should be given to a broader non-legislative initiative to promote the reconciliation of work and family life in Member States;

Amendment 63 #

Georges BACH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Welcomes the Commission’s indication that the maternity leave directive should be considered for withdrawal; urges it, however, to submit a new proposal as soon as possible;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Strongly disagrees with the intention of the Commission to withdraw the directive on maternity leave. Believes that the refusal of the Council to open negotiations with the EP must not impede the provision of effective protection for pregnant or breastfeeding women, and for women re-entering the labour market after pregnancy;

Amendment 65 #

Anne SANDER, Elisabeth MORIN-CHARTIER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Opposes the intention of the Commission to withdraw legislative proposals, in particular the directive on maternity leave; without adequate consultation with co-legislators and stakeholders, which constitutes an essential element of policy making;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that the Commission is considering withdrawing the maternity leave directive; calls on the Commission to draw up a new proposal, which should take account of social developments and result in an ambitious directive which would encourage the rate of employment among women and the birth rate in Europe;

Amendment 67 #

Claude ROLIN, Pascal ARIMONT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Appreciates that, given that this proposal for a directive has been blocked during the legislative procedure since 2008, and is thus inoperative, its withdrawal might lead to a fresh departure or to new ways of achieving these goals;

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Remains strongly opposed to the Commission’s intention to withdraw a number of legislative proposals, particularly the directive on maternity leave, the directive on musculoskeletal disorders and the revision of the carcinogens directive; regrets that these withdrawal proposals were announced without any supporting analysis and without the prior consultation of co- legislators and stakeholders;

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Regrets Commissions' reluctance to present any legislative proposal to support the fight against musculoskeletal disorders that are, according to the European Agency for Safety and Health at work (OSHA) research, costly conditions for companies due to their direct – insurance, compensation, medical and administrative costs - and indirect costs of lost productivity;

Amendment 7 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Lynn BOYLAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that ~~REFIT represents a first step towards reducing the burden of regulation on businesses and eliminating barriers to~~good regulation can benefit businesses and workers alike and help promote economic growth and job creation;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to increase the protection of workers; in particular, calls the Commission to present a proposal on muscular skeletal disorders, environmental tobacco smoke and make necessary updates to carcinogens and mutagens.

Amendment 71 #

Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Asserts that REFIT should not be a pretext for undermining agreements reached between social partners at the European level and that the autonomy of the social partners needs to be respected; underlines that Article 155 TFEU guarantees that social partner agreements become European legislation at the joint request of the signatory parties; calls therefore for the hairdressers social partner agreement on occupational health and safety to be adopted;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Encourages the Commission to present a proposal on the health & safety hairdressers' agreement to respect the experience of European Employers' associations and European workers representation in this sector and their decision of protecting of workers and to respect the possibility provided by the Social Dialogue based in the Treaties.

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Regrets the Commission refusal to turn into law the hairdresser's sector agreement damaging thus the trust of the social partners into European social dialogue and the Commission support function of it;

Amendment 74 #

Georges BACH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to consult Parliament and stakeholders before withdrawing any legislative proposals;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Stresses the need to ensure predictability, legal certainty and transparency in order for REFIT not to become a source of permanent legal uncertainty; underlines that any changes to legislation must be thoroughly considered also in a long-term perspective; notes that the principle of political discontinuity and the withdrawal of existing legislation should not give rise to doubts regarding political desirability of social goals;

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Regrets that the Commission is reluctant to scrutinise the proposed directive on the single member company with limited liability (SUP) in the context of REFIT; warns that the proposed directive might create serious problems by providing new and easy ways to establish letterbox companies as well as by undermining workers' social rights and avoiding the payment of social contributions;

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Is concerned about the ongoing evaluation of Working time legislation for simplification; Suggests improvement of efforts for correct implementation instead;

Amendment 78 #

Ulla TØRNÆS, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Pavel TELIČKA, Marian HARKIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)

4d. Is concerned about the ongoing evaluation of Temporary Agencies legislation for simplification; Requires instead that any revision of it should broaden its scope to include mobile workers;

Amendment 79 #

Sofia RIBEIRO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Rejects the proposal to withdraw aid schemes for the distribution of fruit and vegetables, bananas and milk in schools;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that REFIT represents a first important step towards reducing the administrative burdens of regulation on businesses and eliminating barriers to growth, competitiveness and job creation;

Amendment 80 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the SME test; calls on the Commission to use lighter regimes for micro-enterprises and SMEs and to consider exemptions for micro-enterprises on a case-by-case basis, while not compromising on health, safety and employment standards;deleted

Amendment 81 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes the SME test; c~~Calls on the Commission to ~~use lighter regimes for micro-enterprises and SMEs and to consider exemptions for micro-enterprises on a case-by-case basis, while not compromis~~review the SME test to ensure this does not risk lowering onthe health, and safety and employment ~~standard~~rights and protections of workers in SMEs;

Amendment 82 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes the SME test;~~ calls on the Commission to ~~use lighter regimes for~~consider that, as stated in its opinion by the European Economic and Social Committee, the Think Small First principle is not intended to exempt micro- enterprises and SMEs ~~and to consider exemptions for micro-enterprises on a case-by-case basis~~from the application of the legislation and cannot be used for this purpose but rather to ensure that when legislation is drawn up, the fact that it will also apply to small enterprises is taken into account, without affecting its intended objective, while not compromising on health, safety and employment high standards;

Amendment 83 #

Rina Ronja KARI, Lynn BOYLAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the SME test; ~~calls on the Commission to use~~Warns at the risk of using lighter regimes for micro-enterprises and SMEs ~~and~~or to consider exemptions for micro-enterprises on a case-by-case basis, ~~while not~~as these should never compromis~~ing~~e on health, safety and employment standards; Reminds that according to UEAPME, the exemption of SMEs or micro enterprises of European legislation goes against SME interests;1 1 http://www.ueapme.com/IMG/pdf/141017_ne ws.pdf

Amendment 84 #

Claude ROLIN, Ivo BELET, Georges BACH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes the SME test; c~~Calls on the Commission to ~~use lighter regimes for micro-enterprises and SMEs and to consider exemptions for micro-enterprises on a case-by-case basis, while not compromising on health, safety and employment standards~~take account of the specific features of SMEs and micro-enterprises when drafting legislation, while not compromising on workers’ rights, especially on health and safety standards in the workplace;

Amendment 85 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the SME -test; ~~calls on the Commission to use lighter regimes for micro-enterprises and SMEs and to consider exemptions for micro-enterprises~~believes that micro-enterprises could be considered for exemption on a case-by-case -basis, while not ~~compromising on~~leading to lower health, safety and employment standards;

Amendment 86 #

Ulla TØRNÆS, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Pavel TELIČKA, Ivo VAJGL, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the SME test; calls on the Commission to use ~~ligh~~adapterd regimes for micro-enterprises and SMEs and to consider ~~exemption~~adapted regimes for micro- enterprises on a case-by-case basis, w~~hile not compromising on~~ithout calling the level of health, safety and employment standards into question;

Amendment 87 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the SME test and reminds the Commission on the commitment it has made in the Small Business Act to implement the "think small first principle" in its policy-making and considers that there is still an important margin of progress to be completed; calls on the Commission to use lighter regimes for micro-enterprises, start-ups and SMEs and to consider exemptions for ~~micro-enterprises~~them on a case-by-case basis, while not compromising on health, safety and employment standards;

Amendment 88 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes the SME test~~Points out that some 99% of European businesses are SMEs and should therefore become the benchmark for all regulation; European legislation should be based on the ‘Think Small First’ principle; warmly welcomes the SME test, therefore, which should be mandatory and systematic at all stages of the legislative process; calls on the Commission to use, but only when necessary, lighter regimes for micro- enterprises and SMEs and to consider exemptions for micro-enterprises on a case-by-case basis, while not compromising on health, safety and employment standards;

Amendment 89 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the SME test; calls on the Commission to ~~use lighter regimes for micro-enterprises and SMEs and to~~ consider exemptions for micro-enterprises on a case-by-case basis, while not compromising on health, safety and employment standards;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Recognise~~Considers that REFIT should represents a first step towards reducing the burden of regulation on businesses and eliminating barriers to growth and job creation;

Amendment 90 #

Sven SCHULZE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 91 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the SME test; calls on the Commission to use ~~lighter~~more effective regimes for micro-enterprises and SMEs and to consider exemptions for micro-enterprises on a case-by-case basis, while not compromising on health, safety and employment standards;

Amendment 92 #

Jeroen LENAERS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the SME test; calls on the Commission to use lighter regimes for micro-enterprises and SMEs, in particular for young and start-up entrepreneurs, and to consider exemptions for micro- enterprises on a case-by-case basis, while not compromising on health, safety and employment standards;

Amendment 93 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 94 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Calls on the Commission to urgently consider measures to address the impact that recently implemented EU VAT rules for digital services are having on micro enterprises, particularly the significant administrative burden, in order to allow the digital economy to thrive;

Amendment 95 #

Ulla TØRNÆS, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the Commission to urgently review the Small Business Act to see how it can be improved to work more effectively, in line with the better regulation agenda;

Amendment 96 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Reminds that Commissioner Biénkowska during her confirmation hearing committed the Commission to consider the withdrawal of any proposal that Members find that an impact assessment is flawed or that elements have not been considered in full, calls on the Commission to confirm its commitment to this in writing;

Amendment 97 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Points out that legislation can have a different impact on large enterprises and SME's, which should be kept in mind during the drafting process; stresses that all employees have a right to the highest level of protection regarding health and safety in the workplace regardless the size of the employer or the underlying contract;

Amendment 98 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Notes that social partner agreements apply to a wide range of policy areas that impact on both employees and employers; is concerned that negotiations have not kept pace with the EU better regulation agenda;

Amendment 99 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Calls for further measures to check that ~~legislation is doing what it was intended to do and to identify areas where there are inconsistencies and ineffective measures~~the new rules adopted do not conflict with existing rules, as this would require substantial and costly efforts on the part of our businesses to comply with the new rules; calls, moreover for verification on whether legislative texts have been transposed and applied in a uniform manner by the Member States and whether they are having the desired effect;

source: 552.109

2015/05/27 EMPL 243 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Markus PIEPER, Markus FERBER, Antonio TAJANI, Paul RÜBIG, Pilar del CASTILLO VERA, Michał BONI

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)

- having regard to its resolution of 27 November 2014 on the revision of the Commission's impact assessment guidelines and the role of the SME test2 a, __________________ 2a Adopted text, P8-TA(2014)0069

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the smart regulation agenda constitutes an attempt to consolidate efforts to introduce better lawmaking, simplify EU law and reduce administrative and regulatory burdens, and to embark on a path towards good governance grounded in evidence-based policymaking, in which impact assessments and ex-post controls play an ~~essen~~important role without being a substitute for political ~~role~~decisions and assessments;

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Is convinced that impact assessments constitute an important tool for supporting decision-making in all EU institutions and play a significant role in better regulation; ~~remains, however, conscious of the fact that such assessments are not a substitute for political assessments and decisions~~Sees that better mainstreaming in resource efficiency and gender impact assessments is needed;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Is convinced that impact assessments constitute an important tool for supporting decision-making in all EU institutions and play a significant role in better regulation; remains, however, conscious of the fact that such assessments are not a substitute for political assessments and decisions and should be conducted in advance of democratic and interinstitutional debates on proposals; is convinced that, in any case, a negative impact assessment cannot automatically be considered a veto on a legislative proposal;

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Is convinced that impact assessments constitute an important tool for supporting decision-making in all EU institutions and play a significant role in better regulation; ~~remains~~points out, however, ~~conscious of the fact~~ that such assessments ~~are not~~must never be a substitute for political assessments and decisions;

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Is convinced~~Notes that impact assessments constitute a~~n important~~ tool for supporting decision- making in all EU institutions and play a significant role in better regulation, provided its limitations and potential bias towards quantifiable aspects are clearly recognized; remains, however, conscious of the fact that such assessments are not a substitute for political assessments and decisions;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Is convinced~~Notes that impact assessments constitute an important tool for supporting decision-making in all EU institutions and play a significant role in better regulation; remains, however, conscious of the fact that such assessments are not a substitute for political assessments and decisions;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Is convinced that impact assessments constitute an important tool for supporting decision-making in all EU institutions and play a significant role in better regulation; ~~remains, however, conscious of the fact~~at the same time stresses, however, that such assessments are not a substitute for political assessments and decisions;

Amendment 107 #

Jutta STEINRUCK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Is convinced~~Notes that impact assessments constitute a~~n important~~ tool for supporting decision- making in all EU institutions and play a ~~significant~~ role in better regulation; remains, however, conscious of the fact that such assessments are not a substitute for political assessments and decisions;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Reminds, however, that such assessments are only tools for democratic decision making and subject to its scrutiny, not a substitute for it. Thus, democratic decisions, like those of any parliament's, remain subject to electoral evaluation and are not subordinate to technical assessment;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to be more rigorous in assessing the impact of future and existing regulation on SMEs and competitiveness; Believes that a competitiveness assessment 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 weighted in the final analysis; supports a standing presumption that proposals with a negative impact on competitiveness should not be adopted by the Commission unless evidence supporting significant unquantifiable benefits is presented;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the smart regulation agenda ~~constitute~~is presented as an attempt to consolidate efforts to introduce better lawmaking, simplify EU law and reduce administrative and/or regulatory burdens, and to embark on a path towards good governance grounded in evidence-based policymaking, in which impact assessments and ex-post controls play an essential role;

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Underlines that it should remain in the discretion of the legislator if and when an impact assessment is commissioned on substantive amendments; similarly there should be no obligation on the legislator to perform an impact assessment of an agreement reached on a legislative act prior to the final adoption of an agreement;

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Believes that better regulation principles should apply to decisions on secondary legislation as well as primary legislation; calls on the Commission and its agencies, where appropriate, to accompany delegated and implementing acts with a mandatory impact assessment, including consultation with interested parties and stakeholders;

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Does not consider it appropriate to establish an "independent panel" which every institution would be entitled to call on to assess numerous aspects of any substantive amendments, such as e.g. the costs or practicability of implementation, as this would create a parallel trilogue and undermine the competences and responsibilities of the official negotiation teams;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to regularly to revise the impact assessment guidelines in order to improve this process; believes that the Commission should assess the economic, social and environmental consequences, and better evaluate the impact of its policy on the fundamental rights of citizens in order to fully grasp its effects, keeping in mind that the cost-benefit analysis is only one of many criteria; underlines that when carrying out impact assessments, fundamental and social rights must be given more weight;

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the Commission's commitment regularly to revise the impact assessment guidelines in order to improve this process; believes that the Commission should assess the economic, social and environmental consequences, and better evaluate the impact of its policy on the fundamental rights of citizens in order to fully grasp its effects, keeping in mind that the cost-benefit analysis is only one of many criteria; underlines that when impact assessments are carried out, fundamental and social rights should be given priority over economic considerations;

Amendment 115 #

Iratxe GARCÍA PÉREZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment regularly to revise the impact assessment guidelines in order to improve this process; believes that the Commission should assess the economic, social and environmental consequences, and better evaluate the impact of its policy on the fundamental rights of citizens and the equality between women and men in order to fully grasp its effects, keeping in mind that the cost-benefit analysis is only one of many criteria;

Amendment 116 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment regularly to revise the impact assessment guidelines in order to improve this process; believes that the Commission should assess the economic, social and environmental consequences~~, and better evaluate the impact of its policy on the fundamental rights of citizens in order to fully grasp its effects, keeping in mind that the cost-benefit analysis is only one of many criteria~~ when preparing policy initiatives and that such an obligation should correspondingly be reflected in the impact assessment process;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. WBel~~com~~ieves th~~e Commission’s commitment regularly to revise the impact assessment guidelines in order to improve this process; belie~~at impact assessments must be comprehensives, that the ~~Commission should assess the~~re must be a balanced evaluation of economic, social and environmental consequences~~, and better evaluate~~ in particular, and theat impact ~~of its policy~~ on the fundamental rights of citizens ~~in order to fully grasp its effects, keeping in mind~~must be assessed; stresses that the cost-benefit analysis is only one of many criteria;

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment regularly to revise the impact assessment guidelines in order to improve this process; believes that the Commission should assess the economic, social and environmental consequences, and ~~better evaluate~~analyse more thoroughly the impact of its policy on the fundamental rights of citizens in order to fully grasp its effects, keeping in mind that the cost-benefit analysis ~~is only one of many~~constitutes just one of the assessment criteria;

Amendment 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Takes note of the conversion of~~Supports the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into a ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’(RSB) and expects that the inclusion of independent experts will have a~~n advantageous effe~~ positive impact on the impact assessment process within the Commission; ~~insists that impact assessments should be based on estimating what the addi~~believes that the advantages brought by the RBS could be further realised if it serves as a body shared between the three institutionals, co~~sts would be for the Member States if there were no solution at European level~~ntributing not only to the Commission's preparatory work but also to the development of impact assessment analysis throughout the legislative process;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas administrative burdens are however to be clearly distinguished from regulatory burdens; whereas reduction of administrative burdens should in principle be neutral with regard to the objectives to be achieved by the relevant law; whereas the reduction of regulatory burdens however questions the very existence of the laws in questions and the protection level provided by these;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Takes note of the conversion of the Commission's Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into a ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board' ~~and expects that the inclusion of independent experts will have an advantageous effect on the impact assessment process within the Commission~~; insists that this board should be limited to a consultative role only by giving opinions which are not binding; insists that impact assessments should be based on estimating what the additional costs would be for the Member States if there were no solution at European level;

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Takes note of~~Points out that, in many Member States, independent bodies provide governments with constructive input in connection with legislative processes, with the aim of cutting red tape for business and citizens and of measurably and verifiably reducing costs related to obligations to provide information; welcomes, in the light of that, the conversion of the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into a ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’ and expects that the inclusion of independent experts will have an advantageous effect on the impact assessment process within the Commission; ~~insist~~calls for that body to be consultable not only by the Commission, but also by the Council and Parliament; stresses that impact assessments should be based inter alia on estimating what the additional costs would be for the Member States if there were no solution at European level;

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Takes note of the conversion of the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into a ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’ ~~and expects~~, but is concerned that the inclusion of independent experts will ~~have an advantageous effect on the~~undermine the political responsibility of the Commission for its policy proposals, all the more that a positive opinion by this Board on the related impact assessment is required to processed within the ~~Commission~~file to interservice consultation to; insists that impact assessments should ~~be based o~~include an estimat~~ing what~~e of the additional costs ~~would be~~ for the Member States if there were no solution at European level;

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Takes note of the conversion of the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into a ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’ ~~and expects that the inclusion of independent experts will have an advantageous effect on the impact assessment process within the Commission~~; stresses that this board must be transparent and must not lead to a democratic deficit through transferring decision making powers from the EU's legislative authority to civil servants; insists that this board should play a consultative role only by giving opinions which are not binding; insists that impact assessments should be based on estimating what the additional costs would be for the Member States if there were no solution at European level;

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Takes note of the conversion of the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into a ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’ and expects that the inclusion of independent experts will have an advantageous effect on the impact assessment process within the Commission; insists, however, that the Regulatory Scrutiny Board must have an advisory role only and must not issue binding opinions; insists that impact assessments should be based on estimating what the additional costs would be for the Member States if there were no solution at European level;

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Takes note of the conversion of the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into an independent ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’ (RSB) and expects that the inclusion of independent experts will have an advantageous effect on the impact assessment process within the Commission; insists that impact assessments should be based on estimating what the additional costs would be for the Member States if there were no solution at European level;

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Takes note of the conversion of the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into a ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’ and expects that the inclusion of independent experts will have an advantageous effect on the impact assessment process within the Commission; insists that impact assessments should be based on estimating what the additional economic, social and environmental costs would be for the Member States if there were no solution at European level;

Amendment 127 #

Markus PIEPER, Markus FERBER, Antonio TAJANI, Paul RÜBIG, Pilar del CASTILLO VERA, Michał BONI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Proposes that the Commission establishes as soon as possible a high- level Better Regulation Advisory Body involving both stakeholder expertise and national experts; proposes a strong and independent advisory mandate for this body, which should complement the Commission's work on impact assessments; believes that such a body's expertise, including as regards subsidiarity and proportionality, could provide added value for the impact assessment procedure and for other initiatives relating to better regulation; asks that Parliament and the Council be involved in the expert nomination procedure; suggests that the best practices and experience of existing better regulation bodies (such as those in Sweden, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Germany) be taken into account;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Welcomes the undertaking of the Commission to not proceed with inter- service consultation without a positive opinion of the RSB; reiterates and underlines, however, that the final proposal and impact assessment must be consistent, and must therefore reflect any changes introduced at the inter-service consultation phase; considers, therefore, that the positive opinion of the RSB should be required on the documentation accompanying the final legislative proposal presented to the College, and not only on the drafts presented at the earlier stage;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Welcomes the fact that the Council Working Parties are now, at an early stage of the debate on specific legislative proposals, to consider the relevant Commission impact assessments on the basis of an indicative check list: regrets, however, that the Council Secretariat does not yet have an impact assessment unit of its own~~, gi~~ and believens that ~~it should at least~~aforementioned solution could contribute towards the Council fulfilling its obligations in assessing any substantive amendments to the Commission proposals;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the REFIT Programme aims to consolidate better lawmaking procedures, simplify EU law and reduce administrative and regulatory burdens, and to embark on a path towards good governance grounded in evidence-based policymaking, in which impact assessments and ex-post controls play an essential role;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Welcomes the fact that the Council Working Parties are now, at an early stage of the debate on specific legislative proposals, to consider the relevant Commission impact assessments on the basis of an indicative check list~~: regrets, however, that the Council Secretariat does not yet have an impact assessment unit of its own, given that it should at least assess any substantive amendments to the Commission proposals~~;

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Welcomes the fact that the Council Working Parties are now, at an early stage of the debate on specific legislative proposals, to consider the relevant Commission impact assessments on the basis of an indicative check list~~: regrets, however, that the Council Secretariat does not yet have an impact assessment unit of its own, given that it should at least assess any substantive amendments to the Commission proposals~~;

Amendment 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Urges Parliament’s ~~specialist~~ committees to make more consistent use of in-house impact assessment instruments, particularly where substantial changes to the original Commission proposal are being envisaged; believes, in this regard, that at the initial debate on each legislative proposal the Commission should be invited to present its proposal and an overview of the findings of the accompanying impact assessment; considers that this discussion could be followed by an exchange of views on the appraisal of the impact assessment prepared by the Parliament's services, particularly if deficiencies are identified; notes the use of the impact assessment services by European Parliament committees where substantial changes to the Commission's original proposal are envisaged and their useful contribution to the legislative scrutiny process; emphasises that this should not be seen as a political judgement but rather as a method of introducing independent analysis in support of Parliament's amendments;

Amendment 133 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Urges Parliament’s specialist committees to make more consistent use of in-house impact assessmen~~Points out that Parliament has established an in-house Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, which offers a host of ex ante and ex post impact assessment services for parliamentary committees, assesses the added value of prospective or current EU policies, and assesses science and technology policy options; urges Parliament’s specialist committees to make intensive and consistent use of that instruments, particularly where substantial changes to the original Commission proposal are being envisaged;

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Urges Parliament’s specialist committees to make more consistent use of in-house impact assessment instruments, particularly where substantial changes to the original Commission proposal are being envisaged; calls for the operational ability of the institutions – and of Parliament in particular – to be taken into account with a view to bringing a more effective new approach to bear on impact assessments;

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Urge~~Reminds Parliament’s specialist committees ~~to make more consistent~~of the possibilities to make use of in-house impact assessment ~~instruments, particularly where substantial changes to the original Commission proposal are being envisaged~~capacity;

Amendment 137 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. UNotes that between 2007 and 2014, according to information from the Commission, there were only about twenty Parliament in-house impact assessments - compared with 700 at the Commission - in connection with changes to Commission proposals; urges Parliament’s specialist committees to make more consistent use of in-house impact assessment instruments, particularly where substantial changes to the original Commission proposal are being envisaged;

Amendment 138 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Urges~~Points out to Parliament’s specialist committees tohat they should make more consistent use of in-house impact assessment instruments, particularly where substantial changes to the original Commission proposal are being envisaged;

Amendment 139 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Stresses the need to take account of the horizontal, social and ecological provisions of the Lisbon Treaty (Articles 9 and 11 TFEU) in defining and implementing Union actions and policies; calls on all EU institutions always to consider the short- and long-term effects of legislation; believes that, while the focus of such assessments is primarily on monetary factors, and on easily quantifiable criteria such as economic operators costs, the long-term value of legislation, such as the reduction of adverse health effects or the preservation of ecosystems, is often difficult to quantify, and that, as a consequence, social and environmental costs and benefits are not taken into adequate accounteach of the principles upon which the Union is founded, including the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; calls on all EU institutions always to consider the short- and long-term effects of legislation;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas the Commission has set up a new Refit Platform to support its work in the context of the REFIT Programme, which is made up of two groups: the ‘government group’, comprising high- level experts from the civil service in each Member State, and the ‘stakeholder group’, comprising up to 20 experts, two of whom represent the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, with the remaining experts representing business, including SMEs, the social partners and civil society organisations;

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Stresses the need to take account of the horizontal, social and ecological provisions of the Lisbon Treaty (Articles 9 and 11 TFEU) in defining and implementing Union actions and policies; calls on ~~all EU institut~~the Commissions always to consider the short- and long-term effects of any legislationve proposal; believes that~~, while~~ the focus of ~~such~~the Commission’s impact assessments is primarily on economic and monetary factors, and on easily quantifiable criteria such as economic operators’ costs, t~~he long-term value of legislation~~oo often ignoring the social and environmental impacts, such as the reduction of adverse health effects or the preservation of ecosystems, iswhich are often difficult to quantify~~, and~~; believes, therefore, that, a~~s a consequence,~~dequate account is not taken of the social and environmental costs and benefits ~~are not taken into adequate account~~;

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Stresses the need to take account of the horizontal, social and ecological provisions of the Lisbon Treaty (Articles 9 and 11 TFEU) in defining and implementing Union actions and policies; calls on all EU institutions always to consider an in-depth analysis of the social and environmental impact of any proposed legislation and the short- and long-term effects of legislation; believes that, while the focus of such assessments is primarily on monetary factors, and on easily quantifiable criteria such as economic operators costs, the long- term value of legislation, such as the reduction of adverse health effects or the preservation of ecosystems, is often difficult to quantify, and that, as a consequence, social and environmental costs and benefits are not taken into adequate account;

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Stresses the need to take account of the horizontal, social and ecological provisions of the Lisbon Treaty (Articles 9 and 11 TFEU) in defining and implementing Union actions and policies; calls on all EU institutions always to consider the short- and long-term effects of legislation; believes that, while the focus of such assessments is primarily on monetary factors, and on easily quantifiable criteria such as economic operators costs, the long- term value of legislation, such as the reduction of adverse health effects or the preservation of ecosystems, is often difficult to quantify, and that, as a consequence, social and environmental costs and benefits are not taken into adequate account;Does not affect the English version

Amendment 143 #

Iratxe GARCÍA PÉREZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Refers also to the fact that the Union has set itself the specific task of mainstreaming gender equality in all its activities;

Amendment 144 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. In this regard, notes the importance of reinforcing cooperation with national parliaments in the legislative process by engaging them at an earlier stage and thoroughly evaluating their opinions in instances where concerns have been raised and by making use of a stronger 'red card' procedure; highlights that this will help to reduce the democratic deficit;

Amendment 145 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17b. Notes that a cooling off period taken after the conclusion of negotiations but in advance of a final vote - presently used for lawyer-linguistic revision - could be further utilised for the completion of an impact assessment and subsidiarity check;

Amendment 146 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Believes that ~~all~~each EU institutions should ~~develop a common methodological approach to impact assessments, and calls on them to include this as a priority in the upcoming negotiations on a new interinstitutional agreement~~be responsible for developing its own methodology for impact assessments; stresses the fact that the legislative prerogatives of Parliament and the Council to amend a proposal from the Commission must remain undiminished;

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Believes that all EU institutions should develop a common methodological approach to impact assessments, and calls on them to include this as a priority in the upcoming negotiations on a new interinstitutional agreement; ~~stresse~~recalls the fact that ~~the~~ legislative impact assessments do not and have not impinged on the prerogatives of Parliament and the Council to amend a proposal from the Commission ~~must remain undiminished~~but rather facilitate better lawmaking;

Amendment 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Believes that all EU institutions should develop and adopt a common methodological approach to impact assessments, and calls on them to include this as a priority in the upcoming negotiations on a new interinstitutional agreement; stresses the fact that the legislative prerogatives of Parliament and the Council to amend a proposal from the Commission must remain undiminished;

Amendment 149 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Is deeply concerned about the Commission´s intention to transform its Impact Assessment Board into a Regulatory Scrutiny Board with three external members (so called independent advisors) with de-facto veto power, which would mean a weakening of power of democratically elected legislators and risk of weakening of existing standards of protection of citizens, workers and environment;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)

Ac. whereas the annual REFIT scoreboard allows for the assessment of progress made in all policy areas and of each initiative identified by the Commission, including actions taken by Parliament and the Council;

Amendment 150 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Urges the Commission to increase its consultation procedure, both public and private, with all stakeholders, including consumes, when preparing delegated and implementing acts, with a view to considering how to enhance awareness of proposals at a provisional stage;

Amendment 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)

18b. Calls on the European Parliament to systematically review Commission impact assessments and review IMPAs analysis as early as possible in the legislative process, and to call for impact assessments on its own reports;

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)

18b. Strongly believes that such efforts to increase their input before finalising recommendations will lead to better legislation; in this regard, welcomes possible initiatives to compare processes for consulting on provisional rules or standards with those used in other jurisdictions to share and develop best practice;

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)

18c. Where legislation is proposed in a complex field, considers that a second stage 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 state would introduce further rigor into the Commission’s analysis and strengthen the case for any proposal adopted following this process;

Amendment 154 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

Amendment 155 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Welcomes the Commission's clear commitment to further improving~~Takes note of the SME -test, particularly in view of the extremely large number of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the cornerstone of economic activity and employment; supports consideration of adapted agreements and more flexible SME impact assessment rules, provided that it can be shown that they do not undermine the effectiveness of legal provisions and that exemptions or more flexible provisions do not encourage fragmentation of the internal market or hamper access to itbelieves that micro-enterprises could be considered for exemption on a case-by- case basis;

Amendment 156 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Welcomes the Commission’s clear commitment to further improving the SME test, particularly in view of the ~~extremely large number of~~fact that the more than 20 million small and medium- sized enterprises~~, which~~ account for 99% of all businesses in the EU and, as such, SMEs are the cornerstone of economic activity, growth and employment; supports consideration of adapted agreements and more flexible SME impact assessment rules~~, provided that it can be shown that they do not undermine the effectiveness of legal provisions and that exemptions or more flexible provisions do not encourage fragmentation of the internal market~~ ; calls on the Commission to analyse how feasible and appropriate similar exemptions would be, in particular areas, for hfam~~per access to it~~ily businesses;

Amendment 157 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Welcomes the Commission’s clear commitment to further improving the SME test, particularly in view of the extremely large number of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the cornerstone of economic activity and employment; supports consideration of adapted agreements and more flexible SME impact assessment rules, provided that it can be shown that they do not undermine the effectiveness of legal provisions and that exemptions or more flexible provisions do not encourage fragmentation of the internal market or hamper access to it; welcomes therefore the Commission's commitment to give consideration to more flexible rules for SMEs, including an outright exemption for microbusinesses, only if that is appropriate and feasible and effective realisation of the social, ecological and economic objectives of proposed legal provisions is not undermined;

Amendment 158 #

Markus PIEPER, Markus FERBER, Antonio TAJANI, Paul RÜBIG, Pilar del CASTILLO VERA, Michał BONI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Welcomes the Commission's clear commitment to further improving the SME test and calls on the Commission to monitor effectively whether Member States apply the SME-test consistently during the legislative process, particularly in view of the extremely large number of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the cornerstone of economic activity and employment; supports consideration of adapted agreements and more flexible SME impact assessment rules, provided that it can be shown that they do not undermine the effectiveness of legal provisions and that exemptions or more flexible provisions do not encourage fragmentation of the internal market or hamper access to it;

Amendment 159 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Welcomes the Commission’s clear commitment to further improving the SME test, particularly in view of the extremely large number of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the cornerstone of economic activity and employment; supports consideration of adapted agreements and more flexible ~~SME impact assessment rules, provided that it can be shown~~rules for SMEs, provided that that they do not undermine the effectiveness of legal provisions and that exemptions or more flexible provisions do not ~~encourage~~lead to fragmentation of the sin~~ternal market or hamper access to it;~~ gle market or hamper access to it; 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 provision, to be rebutted by evidence, where appropriate;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking of 2003 has been partially outdated by the current legislative environment created by the Treaty of Lisbon;

Amendment 160 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Welcomes the Commission's clear commitment to further improving the SME test, particularly in view of~~Notes the extremely large number of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the cornerstone of economic activity and employment; supports consideration of ~~adapted agreements and~~ more flexible SME impact assessment rules, provided that it can be shown that they do not undermine the effectiveness of legal provisions ~~and that exemptions or more flexible provisions do not encourage fragmentation of the internal market or hamper access to it~~, employment and social conditions of workers or consumer and environment protection;

Amendment 161 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Welcomes the Commission’s clear commitment to further improving the SME test, particularly in view of~~Notes the extremely large number of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the cornerstone of economic activity and employment; supports consideration of adapted agreements and more flexible SME impact assessment rules, provided that it can be shown that they do not undermine the effectiveness of legal provisions and that exemptions or more flexible provisions do not encourage fragmentation of the internal market or hamper access to it;

Amendment 162 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Welcomes the Commission’s clear commitment to further improving the SME test, particularly in view of the ~~extremely large number of~~fact that small and medium-sized enterprises~~, which~~ are the cornerstone of economic activity and employment; supports consideration of adapted agreements and more flexible SME impact assessment rules, provided that it can be shown that they do not undermine the effectiveness of legal provisions and that exemptions or more flexible provisions ~~do not encourage fragmentation of the internal marke~~are meant for specific production sectors and not for ~~hamper access to it~~individual businesses in particular;

Amendment 163 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Points out that focusing on the interests of business - 'Think small first' - is a mistake which increases imbalances within society and, ultimately will harm business too; calls therefore on the Commission to take account of high employment and social standards;

Amendment 164 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls on the Commission not to abandon its ambitious targets of reducing the regulatory and administrative burden ~~on SMEs~~ and thereby helping to establish a basis for the creation of quality jobs and urges that measures be taken to ensure that objectives concerning the public interest including user-friendly, ecological, social, health and safety and gender-equality standards are not compromisedimproved competitiveness, stronger economic growth and the creation of quality jobs; stresses that reductions in burdens should avoid negative impacts on objectives concerning the public interest and emphasises that simpler or less burdensome application of rules and regulations can be achieved without sacrificing the aims and objectives of legislation;

Amendment 165 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. C~~alls on~~onsiders that the Commission ~~not to abandon its~~should have ambitious targets of reducing the administrative burden onfor SMEs ~~and thereby helping to establish a basis for~~, provided that such a reduction lead to the creation of quality jobs and ~~urges~~ that measures be taken to ensure that objectives concerning the public interest, including user-friendly, ecological, social, health and safety and gender-equality standards are not compromised; stresses that reducing the administrative burden must not lead to an increase in precarious employment contracts, and that workers in SME's and micro enterprises must enjoy the same treatment and high standard of protection as workers in larger companies; underlines the need to not only assess financial factors and short-term effects but also the long-term value of legislation, such as the reduction of adverse health effects or the preservation of ecosystems, or the growth benefits of the inclusion of women in the labour market and high health and safety standards at work;

Amendment 166 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Calls on the Commission not to abandon its ambitious targets of reducing the administrative burden on SMEs and thereby helping to establish a basis for the creation of quality jobs and u~~Urges that measures be taken to ensure that objectives concerning the public interest including user-friendly, ecological, social, health and safety and gender- equality standards are not compromised;

Amendment 167 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls on the Commission not to abandon its ambitious targets of reducing the administrative burden on SMEs and thereby helping to establish a basis for the creation of quality jobs ~~and~~, but urges that measures be taken to ensure that objectives concerning the public interest including user-friendly, ecological, social, health and safety and gender-equality standards are not compromised; takes the view that options that would permit lighter regimes should be assessed on a case-by-case basis;

Amendment 168 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Insists that the Commission should establish a European objective of a 30 per cent reduction in costs generated by administrative and compliance costs and regulatory burdens for each policy area by 2020;

Amendment 169 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)

20b. Believes that policy makers must ensure that legislation encourages innovation by assessing the impact of risk management legislation on innovation;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas in the past years the better regulation agenda has nevertheless contributed to improving legislative practices; whereas the large number of different names and programmes introduced by the Commission in the area, such as ‘better regulation’, ‘better lawmaking’, ‘smart regulation’, ‘regulatory fitness’, ‘Think Small First’, ‘fitness checks’, ‘ABR+’, does not ~~set a good example for achieving the clarity that citizens legitimately expect from the EU~~provide sufficient clarity as regards the aims of the measures, particularly for citizens, and they should therefore be better combined and consolidated;

Amendment 170 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 c (new)

20c. Stresses that a Single Market which does not over-burden or frustrate production, innovation and commerce is a structure that will bring jobs and growth back to Europe 're-shoring', which previously would have been located outside Europe where standards are lower;

Amendment 171 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 d (new)

20d. Stresses, therefore, that the shared responsibility for improved Single Market regulation will lead to the realisation of the shared benefits; a strong and vibrant Single Market contributing to the long- term growth of Europe and thus the prosperity of its citizens;

Amendment 172 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

~~21. Notes that evaluation of new rules regarding their impact on SMEs must be in no way detrimental to the rights of their employees;~~deleted

Amendment 173 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Notes that evaluation of new rules regarding their impact on SMEs must be in no way detrimental to the rights of their employees; calls on the Commission not to use the "Top Ten" most burdensome laws for SMEs as justification to review the working time and temporary agency directives, because the protection of workers must be guaranteed regardless whether the workplace is in small, medium sized or large enterprises;

Amendment 174 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Not~~Underlines that evaluation of new rules regarding their impact on SMEs must be in no way be detrimental to the rights of their employees;

Amendment 175 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Notes that evaluation of new rules regarding their impact on SMEs must be in no way detrimental to ~~the rights of their employee~~worker's rights;

Amendment 176 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Notes that evaluation of new rules regarding their impact on SMEs must be in no way detrimental to the rights, safety and wellbeing of their employees;

Amendment 177 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

~~21. Notes that evaluation of new rules regarding their impact on SMEs must be in no way detrimental to the rights of their employees;~~(Does not affect the English version.)

Amendment 178 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Stresses the need for more clearly worded regulations that can be implemented in a simple manner and can help all actors, including entrepreneurs, operate within the rule of law; Underlines that simpler, smarter regulation leads to consistent transposition and more effective and uniform enforcement by Member States;

Amendment 179 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is making ex-post analysis an integral part of better regulation; stresses that, in the interests of legal certainty for citizens and businesses, such analyses should be carried out within a sufficient time-frame, preferably several years after the deadline for transposition into national law;(Does not affect English version.)

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas in the past years the better regulation agenda has nevertheless contributed to improving legislative practices; whereas the large number of different names and programmes introduced by the Commission in the area, such as ‘better regulation’, ’better lawmaking’, ‘smart regulation’, ’regulatory fitness’, ‘Think Small First’, ’fitness checks’, ‘ABR+’, does not set a good example for achieving the clarity that citizens legitimately expect from the EU;(does not affect English version)

Amendment 180 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

Amendment 181 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

Amendment 182 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is making ex-post analysis an integral part of better regulation; stresses that, in the interests of legal certainty for citizens and businesses, such analyses should ~~be carried out within a sufficient time-frame, preferably several years after the deadline for transposition into national law~~have a long term view in mind, focusing on the impact of legislation in terms of addressing the policy challenge it intended to resolve;

Amendment 183 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

Amendment 184 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is making systematic ex-post analysis an integral part of better regulation; stresses that, in the interests of legal certainty for citizens and businesses, such analyses should be carried out within a sufficient time-frame, preferably several years after the deadline for transposition into national law;

Amendment 185 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is making ex-post analysis an integral part of better regulation; reminds however that ex-post evaluations should never replace the Commission's duty as guardian of the Treaties to monitor effectively and timely the application of Union law by Member States and to take all necessary steps to ensure good application thereof; stresses that, in the interests of legal certainty for citizens and businesses, such analyses should be carried out within a sufficient time-frame, preferably several years after the deadline for transposition into national law;

Amendment 186 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

Amendment 187 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is making ex-post analysis an integral part of better regulation; stresses that, in the interests of legal certainty for citizens and businesses, such analyses should be carried out within a sufficient time-frame, and preferably ~~several years~~a reasonable time after the deadline for transposition into national law, so that a genuine analysis can be conducted of the effects of the legislation implemented;

Amendment 188 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

Amendment 189 #

Axel VOSS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Calls on the Commission in this connection, 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 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas in the past years the better regulation agenda has nevertheless contributed to improving legislative practices, but has also triggered a significant opposition by civil society groups; whereas the large number of different names and programmes introduced by the Commission in the area, such as ‘better regulation’, ’better lawmaking’, ‘smart regulation’, ’regulatory fitness’, ‘Think Small First’, ’fitness checks’, ‘ABR+’, does not set a good example for achieving the clarity that citizens legitimately expect from the EU;

Amendment 190 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Underlines that rolling reviews should not be the only ex-post evaluation undertaken, but rather the Commission should also review implementation on the ground as new legislation enters into force; believes that often teething problems and urgent impediments towards achieving the objectives of the legislation manifest themselves clearly once businesses, consumers and other affected stakeholders apply the rules; in this regard, stresses that the Commission should have a 'fast reaction' system which responds to these unforeseen challenges to address any serious implementation concerns over and above any regulatory fitness and general improvement of the acquis;

Amendment 191 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Underscores the importance of ex post assessment and policy performance appraisal for an evaluation of the implementation and efficiency of EU legislation and EU policies in the light of the legislative authority's intended outcomes;

Amendment 192 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Considers that national parliaments should be involved in the ex-post evaluation of new legislation, as this would ~~not only contribute to strengthening their common European responsibility but also benefit the Commission’s report~~also benefit the Commission’s reports and help explore the different national challenges posed by individual laws and regulations;

Amendment 193 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Considers that national parliaments should be involved in the ex-post evaluation of new legislation, as this would not only contribute to strengthening their common European responsibility but also benefit the Commission’s reports;(Does not affect English version.)

Amendment 194 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Considers that national parliaments should be involved in the ex-post evaluation of new legislation, as this would ~~not only contribute to~~ strengthen~~ing~~ their common European responsibility ~~but also benefit~~and lend greater value to the Commission’s reports;

Amendment 195 #

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Considers that the Committee of the Regions should be involved, as an advisory body, in the ex-post evaluation of new legislation;

Amendment 196 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

~~24. Notes that, according to the Commission, one third of the regulatory and administrative burden of EU legislation follows from transposition measures undertaken by the Member States;~~deleted

Amendment 197 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Acknowledges that, in most cases, it is the prerogative of the Member States to decide whether to adopt higher social and environmental standards at national level than those agreed upon at EU level, and welcomes any decision to do so; calls, however, on the competent national authorities to be aware of the possible consequence of the so-called practice of ‘gold plating’, by which unnecessary bureaucratic burdens are added to EU legislation, since this may lead to a misconception of the legislative activity of the EU, which in turn might foster EU scepticism; recommends, for the sake of transparency and user-friendliness, that any additional innovations introduced at national level be clearly identified as such;

Amendment 198 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Acknowledges that, in most cases, it is the prerogative of the Member States to decide whether to adopt higher social and environmental standards at national level than those agreed upon at EU level, and welcomes any decision to do so; calls, however, on the competent national authorities to be aware of the possible consequence of the so-called practice of ‘gold plating’, by which unnecessary bureaucratic burdens are added to EU legislation, since this may lead to a misconception of the legislative activity of the EU, which in turn might foster EU scepticism; accordingly considers that Commission assessments of transposition by Member States should also cover gold plating; recommends, for the sake of transparency and user-friendliness, that any additional innovations introduced at national level be clearly identified as such; points out to the Council that documents relating to law-making, in many cases, remain under restriction, notwithstanding the commitments entered into under the 2003 Interinstitutional Agreement;

Amendment 199 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Acknowledges that~~, in most cases,~~ it is the prerogative of the Member States to decide whether to adopt higher social and environmental standards at national level than those agreed upon at EU level, and welcomes any decision to do so; calls, however, on the competent national authorities to be aware of the possible consequence of the so-called practice of ‘gold plating’, by which unnecessary bureaucratic burdens are added to EU legislation, since this may lead to a misconception of the legislative activity of the EU, which in turn might foster EU scepticism; recommends, for the sake of transparency and user-friendliness, that any additional innovations introduced at national level be clearly identified as such;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)

- having regard to its report of 25 February 2012 entitled ‘Follow-up on the delegation of legislative powers and the control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers’,

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas, in its communication ‘Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda’ of 19 May 2015, the Commission has now proposed a coherent holistic approach to better lawmaking that takes account of the entire policy cycle of lawmaking and requires targeted interaction among all the institutions, and for this reason it will be closely studied by Parliament in order to achieve the best possible results in the interest of Union citizens;

Amendment 200 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Acknowledges that, in most cases, it is the prerogative of the Member States to decide whether to adopt higher social and environmental standards at national level than those agreed upon at EU level, and welcomes any decision to do so; calls, however, on the competent national authorities to be aware of the possible consequence of the so-called practice of ‘gold plating’, by which unnecessary bureaucratic burdens are added to EU legislation, since this may lead to a misconception of the legislative activity of the EU, which in turn might foster EU scepticism; recommenany reference to gold-plating is therefore misleading and should not hinder Member States to adopt higher protection standards, for ~~the sake of transparency and user-friendliness, that any additional innovations introduced at national level be clearly identified as such~~workers, consumers and the environment;

Amendment 201 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Acknowledges that, in most cases, it is the prerogative of the Member States to decide whether to adopt higher ~~social and environmental~~ standards at national level than those agreed upon at EU level~~, and welcomes any decision to do so~~; calls, however, on the competent national authorities to be aware of the possible consequence of the so-called practice of ‘gold plating’, by which unnecessary bureaucratic burdens are added to EU legislation~~, since this may lead to a misconception of the legislative activity of the EU, which in turn might foster EU scepticism~~; recommends, for the sake of transparency ~~and user-friendliness~~, that any additional innovations introduced at national level be clearly identified as such;

Amendment 202 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Acknowledges that, in most cases, it is the prerogative of the Member States to decide whether to adopt higher social and environmental standards at national level than those agreed upon at EU level, and welcomes any decision to do so; calls, however, on the competent national authorities to be aware of the possible consequence of the so-called practice of ‘gold plating', by which unnecessary bureaucratic burdens are added to EU legislation, since this may lead to a misconception of the legislative activity of the EU, which in turn might foster EU scepticism; recommenany reference to gold-plating is therefore misleading and should not hinder Member States to adopt higher protection standards, for ~~the sake of transparency and user-friendliness, that any additional innovations introduced at national level be clearly identified as such~~workers, consumers and the environment;

Amendment 203 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Acknowledges that, in most cases, it is the prerogative of the Member States to decide whether to adopt higher social and environmental standards at national level than those agreed upon at EU level~~, and welcomes any decision to do so~~; calls, however, on the competent national authorities to give reasons officially for doing so and to be aware of the possible consequence of the so-called practice of ‘gold plating’, by which unnecessary bureaucratic burdens are added to EU legislation, since this may lead to a misconception of the legislative activity of the EU, which in turn might foster EU scepticism; recommends, for the sake of transparency and user-friendliness, that any additional innovations introduced at national level be clearly identified as such;

Amendment 204 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Acknowledges that, in ~~most cas~~the case of directives, it is the prerogative of the Member States to decide whether to adopt higher social and environmental standards at national level than those agreed upon at EU level, and welcomes any decision to do so; reaffirms that that must not be regarded as 'gold plating'; calls, however, on the competent national authorities to be aware of the possible consequence of the so-called practice of ‘gold plating’, by which unnecessary bureaucratic burdens are added to EU legislation, since this may lead to a misconception of the legislative activity of the EU, which in turn might foster EU scepticism; recommends, for the sake of transparency and user-friendliness, that any additional innovations introduced at national level be clearly identified as such;

Amendment 205 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

Amendment 206 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Acknowledges that, in most cases, it is the prerogative of the Member States to decide whether to adopt higher social and environmental standards at national level than those agreed upon at EU level~~, and welcomes any decision to do so~~; calls, however, onfor the competent national authorities to have to be aware of the possible consequences of the so-called practice of ‘gold plating’, by which unnecessary bureaucratic burdens are added to EU legislation, since this may lead to a misconception of the legislative activity of the EU, which in turn might foster EU scepticism; recommends, for the sake of transparency and user-friendliness, that any additional innovations introduced at national level be clearly identified as such;

Amendment 207 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Again calls on the Member States to draw up annual reports and correlation tables on the transposition of directives, which should be made public and be verifiable;

Amendment 208 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Stresses that the Commission should tackle the policy incoherence across European and national legislations; underlines that the Commission also has the responsibility to implement the programmes and action plans, agreed jointly with the Council; calls in this context on the Commission to rapidly implement the 7th Environmental Action Programme, and to come forward with proposals on effective legal protection and access to justice with regard to environmental matters;

Amendment 209 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Stresses that Parliament, as one arm of the legislative authority, has an interest in understanding what the impact of EU legislation actually is after it has been implemented; calls therefore on the Commission to grant Parliament full access to any assessments in that connection, including the source data collected and preparatory documents;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the aims and objectives of the Union spelled out in Article 3 TEU are all of equal import; whereas the Commission underlines that the REFIT programme does not call into question existing policy objectives, nor ~~does~~should it impact negatively on the health and safety of citizens, consumers, workers or the environment; whereas the Commission has however proposed or intends to propose simplifications in the name of REFIT that may negatively affect the protection of human health or the environment via e.g. deleting or reducing safety requirements in the context of marketing authorisations.

Amendment 210 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 b (new)

26b. Points to the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents and to the Joint Political Declaration of 27 October 2011 of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on explanatory documents, and calls on the Commission to ensure that Parliament has access to explanatory documents;

Amendment 211 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Points out that the Commission~~, in consequence of its right of legislative initiative,~~ may at any time in the course of ~~a procedure for~~ the adoption of a Union act under the ordinary legislative procedure amend or withdraw a proposal as long as the Council has not yet taken any decision on it, as emphasised by the ECJ in paragraph 74 of its judgment of 14 April 2015; points out that the Court also stressed that the right of initiative conferred on the Commission does not constitute a right of veto over the legislative process; stresses~~, however,~~ that the Commission’s readiness to take into account the views of the Parliament in questions relating to the withdrawal or amendment of legislative proposals, constitutes an essential element of the political trust between the two institutions;

Amendment 212 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Points out that the Commission, in consequence of its right of legislative initiative, may at any time in the course of a procedure for the adoption of a Union act withdraw a proposal as long as the Council has not yet taken any decision on it; stresses, however, that the Commission’s readiness to take into account the views of the Parliament in questions relating to the withdrawal or amendment of legislative proposals, constitutes an essential element of the political trust between the two institutions;

Amendment 213 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

Amendment 214 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27a. Welcomes the ECJ judgment of 14 April 2015, which stresses that the Commission must state to Parliament and the Council the grounds for any withdrawal of a legislative proposal;

Amendment 215 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

~~28. Notes that, in its 2015 working programme the newly-elected Commission has, for the first time, put all pending legislative initiatives to the test under the principle of political discontinuity;~~deleted

Amendment 216 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

Amendment 217 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Questions the validity of the argument put forward in the Commission work programme that no agreement is in sight in the Council as a justification for the withdrawal of legislative initiatives, given that the political position of the Council may vary in the wake of Member State elections and, quite aside from this, political priorities or needs may change and if account is taken solely of the current position of this branch of the legislature, the balance might be tilted to the detriment of the other, that is to say Parliament;deleted

Amendment 218 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

Amendment 219 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29a. Stresses that the ECJ, in a judgment of 14 April 2015, reminded the Commission that in the event of the withdrawal of a legislative proposal it must comply with the principle of conferral of powers, the principle of institutional balance and the principle of sincere cooperation, as laid down in Article 13(2) TEU, and with the principle of democracy, as laid down in Article 10(1) and (2) TEU;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the aims and objectives of the Union spelled out in Article 3 TEU are all of equal import; whereas the ~~Commission underlines that the~~ REFIT programme does not call into question existing policy objectives, nor ~~does~~should it impact negatively on the health and safety of citizens, consumers, workers or the environment;

Amendment 220 #

Markus PIEPER, Markus FERBER, Antonio TAJANI, Paul RÜBIG, Pilar del CASTILLO VERA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Remains strongly opposed, with reference to the decisions of the Parliament of 15 January 2015, to the intention of the Commission to withdraw a number of legislative proposals, in particular the directive on maternity leave, the legislative proposals on air quality and waste policy, the directive on transparency in pricing and reimbursement of medicines, and the proposal to revise the directive on national emission ceilings under the legislative follow-up to the climate and energy package; calls on the Commission to take due account of the position of Parliament;deleted

Amendment 221 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

Amendment 222 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

Amendment 223 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. ~~Remains strongly opposed, with reference to the deci~~Backs the Commission's ~~of the Parliament of 15 January 2015, to the intention of the Commiss~~intention to withdraw ~~a number of~~many legislative proposals, ~~in particular~~such as, for instance, the directive on maternity leave, ~~the legislative proposals on air quality and waste policy, the directive~~in order to facilitate a fresh start or look for alternatives; calls on the Commission in this connection, in view onf t~~ransparency in pricing and reimbursement of medicines, and the proposal~~he serious problems which arise in the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, to revisew the ~~directive on national emission ceiling~~scientific basis of this regulation and how useful and realistic it is uand~~er the legislative follow-up to the c~~, if appropriate, to eliminate ~~and energy package; calls on the Commission to take due account~~the concept of nutrient profiles; considers that the aims of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 have now been attained by Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 ofn the p~~osit~~rovision of ~~Parliament~~food information to consumers;

Amendment 224 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Remains strongly opposed, with reference to the decisions of the Parliament of 15 January 2015, to the intention of the Commission to withdraw a number of legislative proposals, ~~in particular the directive on maternity leave,~~calls on the Commission to continue negotiations on the maternity directive, and the legislative proposals on air quality and waste policy, the directive on transparency in pricing and reimbursement of medicines, and the proposal to revise the directive on national emission ceilings under the legislative follow-up to the climate and energy package; calls on the Commission to take due account of the position of Parliament;

Amendment 225 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Remains strongly opposed, with reference to the decisions of the Parliament of 15 January 2015, to the intention of the Commission to withdraw a number of legislative proposals, in particular the directive on resource efficiency, maternity leave, the legislative proposals on air quality and waste policy, the directive on transparency in pricing and reimbursement of medicines, and the proposal to revise the directive on national emission ceilings under the legislative follow-up to the climate and energy package; calls on the Commission to take due account of the position of Parliament;

Amendment 226 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

Amendment 227 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)

30a. Regrets that the Commission is reluctant to scrutinise the proposed directive on SUP in the context of REFIT, warns that the proposed directive will create serious problems by providing new and easy ways to establish letterbox companies as well as by undermining workers ‘social rights;

Amendment 228 #

Iratxe GARCÍA PÉREZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)

31a. Emphasises that, with regard to the maternity leave directive, the announced withdrawal is all the more questionable as the European Parliament has concluded its first reading while the discussions in Council are blocked and thus compromises the whole legislative procedure;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. Whereas there will always be new emerging challenges, like those in the fields of information technology and resource scarcity, which require new and ambitious legislation to meet the challenges and ensure a level-playing field for businesses and prevent risks;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the Commission, in establishing its work programme for 2015, ~~for the first time applied the so-called principle of political discontinuity as justification for withdrawing a huge~~sought to withdraw a number of pending legislative proposals;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the Commission, in establishing its work programme for 2015, for the first time applied the so-called principle of political discontinuity as justification for withdrawing a huge number of pending legislative proposals;(does not affect English version)

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas citizens often associate the EU with insufficient transparency and excessive red tape rather than with peace, freedom and prosperity, and the EU’s acceptance suffers as a result;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)

Fb. whereas in its work programme for 2015, the Commission plans to focus its activities on the major economic and social challenges and interfere less in areas where the Member States are better able to find the right answers at national or regional level;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F c (new)

Fc. whereas the Commission‘s new structure aims to guarantee a more coherent policy approach;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)

- having regard 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 test5a, __________________ 5a Texts adopted, P8-TA(2014)0069

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes~~Takes notice of the decision of Commission President Juncker to entrust the First Vice- President of the Commission with the portfolio of better regulation, which underlines the high political importance of this topic; fears however that cutting red tape will lead to deregulation, that negatively effects legislation on employment, health and safety at work, environmental and consumer protection;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the decision of Commission President Juncker to entrust the First Vice- President of the Commission with the portfolio of better regulation, which underlines the high political importance of this topic, and which also needs to be seen against the radically different internal structure with new working methods within the Commission, and a drastically reduced work programme;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the decision of Commission President Juncker to entrust the First Vice- President of the Commission with the portfolio of better regulation, which underlines the high political importance of this topic; and stresses that it should be an ongoing process ensuring that the legislation in force at European level is of utmost quality, meeting the expectations of citizens and other stakeholders, calls for public policy objectives including consumer, environmental, social and health and safety standards not to be jeopardised;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the decision of Commission President Juncker to entrust the First Vice- President of the Commission with the portfolio of better regulation, which underlines the high political importance of this topic; stresses however that cutting red tape must not lead to deregulation, in particular as regards legislation on employment and social affairs, health and safety at work, environmental and consumer protection;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the decision of Commission President Juncker to entrust the First Vice- President of the Commission with the portfolio of better regulation, which responds to repeated calls for the Parliament to this effect and underlines the high political importance of this topic;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that the freedom of Members of the European Parliament to carry out their political work must not be restricted in any way; this also includes the possibility of making significant changes to legislative proposals;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Welcomes the Commission proposal concerning better regulation, in particular with regard to its substantive measures concerning transparency and the reduction of red tape; still has reservations, however, about the operation and effectiveness of the proposed Regulatory Scrutiny Board and independent panel as well as the entire impact assessment mechanism, the function of which should be not only to reduce costs for businesses and to aid economic recovery, but also to monitor the impact of legislation on social, environmental and employment-related matters;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Sharply criticises, therefore, the Commission’s proposal indirectly to restrict the room for manoeuvre available to Members of the European Parliament in their legislative work by means of impact assessments on substantive amendments to Commission proposals;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that better regulation should encompass the ‘culture’ of public administration at all levels of the European Union, and include the implementation and application of Union acts at European level as well as at national, regional and local levels in order to ensure good administration ~~and ’Europe-friendly conduct’~~ at all levels;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)

- having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda’,

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that better regulation should encompass the ‘culture’ of public administration at all levels of the European Union, and include the implementation and application of Union acts at European level as well as at national, regional and local levels in order to ensure good administration and ‘Europe-friendly conduct’ at all levels;(does not affect English version)

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that better regulation should encompass the ‘culture’ of public administration at all levels of the European Union, bearing in mind the excessive levels of red tape EU-wide and the need to simplify legislation, and include the implementation and application of Union acts at European level as well as at national, regional and local levels in order to ensure good administration and ‘Europe- friendly conduct’ at all levels;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Is however very concerned about the Better Regulation package adopted by the Commission on 19 May 2015, as it introduces or seeks to introduce a significant amount of additional administrative procedures with a view to reducing regulatory burden;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that the Commission should focus ~~more~~ on the quality of legislation ~~rather than on the number of legislative ac~~and on better enforcement of existing legislation and not on the number of legislative acts ; opposes the introduction of a net target for reducing regulatory costs, as this ignores the aim pursued by regulation and its corresponding benefits;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that the Commission should focus ~~more~~ on the quality of legislation ~~rather than on the number of legislative acts;~~ and on better enforcement of existing legislation and not on the number of legislative acts; therefore opposes the introduction of a net target for reducing regulatory costs as this contradicts the aim pursued by regulation and its corresponding benefits;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that the Commission should focus more on the quality of legislation rather than on the number of legislative acts; in this regard supports the Commission's approach to scale back the volume of proposals and to prioritise the development of certain measures; advises that those proposals which would contribute most effectively to the promotion of growth and employment be the focus on the Commission in its future activities;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that the Commission should focus more on the quality of legislation rather than on the number of legislative acts; underlines in this regard that costs should not be the decisive factor but quality of legislation is the only appropriate benchmark and that REFIT programme must not be used to undermine social, labour, environmental and consumer standards;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that the Commission should focus ~~more on the quality of legislation rather than on the number of legislative acts~~above all what is needed to achieve sustainable development and then deliver proposals of good quality of legislation rather than focus on reducing regulatory burden per se;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to introduce a sunset clause in all legislative initiatives and thereby automatically and regularly reassess the need for and suitability of all legislative measures at European level;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses that a European standard generally replaces 28 national standards and, twhere~~by underpinning the single market and cutting down on bureaucracy~~ effective, can have an impact on the single market and on the reduction of red tape, without prejudice to the division of competences between the Member States and the EU, as set out in the Treaty of Lisbon;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15

– having regard to the final report of 24 July 2014 of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens, entitled ‘Cutting Red Tape in Europe – Legacy and Outlook’, and ~~in particular~~ the dissenting opinion in Annex 12 from four members of the High Level Group ~~with a background in advocacy for workers, for public health, for the environment and for consumers~~,

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses that a European standard generally replaces 28 national standards, ~~thereby underpinning the single market and cutting down on bureaucrac~~but must under every circumstances respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Stres~~Recognises that a European standard ~~generall~~may replaces 28 ~~national~~or more diverging standards, thereby ~~underpinning the single market and cutting down on bureaucracy;~~ assisting the development of the single market; Notes that where no corresponding national legislation exists or the differences among Member States is broad in terms of the scale of problem, legislation may impose new and additional burdens in comparison to national or sectoral legislation;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses that a European standard generally replaces 28 national standards, thereby potentially underpinning the single market and cutting down on bureaucracy;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Insists that legislation on employment and Health & Safety represents minimum standards of protection of workers which Member States can go beyond. The EU legislation will not be interpreted as maximum standards in situations in which these regulations can be seen as obstacles for competition in the single market;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Welcomes the package of measures aimed at Better Regulation of 19 May, and in particular the REFIT Communication; supports 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 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Considers that the concept of Scoreboards should be modified to instead comprise two documents, one outlining a work plan and the other detailing 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, and an easily understandable statement or ledger of 'debits and credits' in terms of the administrative and regulatory impact of proposals adopted in the previous year, which would be useful, and would demonstrate that the Commission understands the cumulative cost of regulation is problematic;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s commitment to negotiate a new interinstitutional agreement on better lawmaking that takes account of the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty and the Framework Agreement between Parliament and the Commission, and to consolidate best practices in areas such as legislative planning, impact assessments, systematic ex-post checks of EU legislation and the implementation and handling of delegated and implementing acts; stresses that regulatory simplification (REFIT) cannot and should not be taken as a pretext for lowering the level of ambition on issues of related to the safety and wellbeing of people, or on the protection of the environment;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the Commission’s ~~commitment to negotiate a new~~proposal for an interinstitutional agreement on better ~~lawmaking that~~regulation, takesing account of the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty and the Framework Agreement between Parliament and the Commission, ~~and to~~which consolidates best practices in areas such as legislative planning, impact assessments, ~~systematic~~ ex-post checks of EU legislation and the implementation and handling of delegated and implementing acts;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s commitment to negotiate a new interinstitutional agreement on better lawmaking that takes account of the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty and the Framework Agreement between Parliament and the Commission, and ~~to consolidate best~~aims to improve practices in areas such as legislative planning, impact assessments, systematic ex-post checks of EU legislation and the implementation and handling of delegated and implementing acts, and stresses its resolve to conclude the negotiations by the end of the year;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to enhancing the transparency of its decisions, particularly with regard to delegated acts; is disappointed, however, at the insufficient time to be made available for submitting comments to the Commission;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)

- having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda’, COM(2015)215 of 19 May 2015; having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Proposal for an Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Regulation’, COM(2015) 216; having regard to the Commission decision establishing the REFIT Platform C(2015) 3261 and the Commission communication entitled ‘The REFIT Platform - Structure and Functioning’ C(2015) 3260; having regard to the decision of the President of the European Commission on the establishment of an independent Regulatory Scrutiny Board C(2015) 3263 and the communication to the Commission ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board - Mission, tasks and staff’ C(2015) 3262, and to the Commission communication ‘Standard Explanatory Memorandum’ C(2015) 3264/2; having regard to the Commission staff working document ‘Better Regulation Guidelines’ SWD(2015) 111,

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Welcomes the confirmation given by the Commission that its better regulation strategy is not aimed at deregulating particular policy areas or calling into question values to which we attach importance, such as social protection, environmental protection and fundamental rights, including the right to health;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Points out that four member~~Supports the conclusions of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders ~~have come out against several of the conclusions presented in the Group’s final report of on administrative burdens and~~in the final report; Acknowledges that four members of the High Level Group produced a dissenting opinion; expects the Commission to take into account the concerns of all stakeholders involved in the process;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Points out that four members of~~Highlights the excellent work carried out by the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders have come out against several of the conclusions presented in the Group’s final report of on administrative burdens and produced a dissenting opinion; expects the Commission to take into account the conc, which has adopted more than 45 opinions and reports in the space of seven years, making several hundred proposals aimed at reducing the Commission’s administrative burdens and identifying best practice with a view to implementing EU legislation in the Member States in as unbureaucratic a way as possible; welcomes the Commission‘s decision according to which individual memberns of ~~all stakeholder~~the High Level Group will continue to advise the Commission on issues lin~~volved in the process~~ked to cutting red tape and better regulation in the future;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Points out that four members of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders have come out against several of the conclusions presented in the Group’s final report of on administrative burdens and produced a ~~dissen~~conflicting opinion; expects the Commission to take into account the concerns of all stakeholders involved in the process;

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines that the social partners may, in accordance with Article 155 TFEU, conclude agreements that can be implemented uniformly; calls on the Commission to respect the autonomy of the parties and their negotiated agreements, and to take their concerns seriously, and stresses that the REFIT agenda should not be a pretext for disregarding agreements reached between the social partners;deleted

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Underlin~~Notes that ~~the~~ social partner~~s may, in accordance with Article 155 TFEU, conclude~~ agreements apply to a wide range of policy agre~~ement~~as that ~~can be implemented uniformly; calls on the Commission to respect the autonomy of the parties and thei~~impact significantly on businesses; is concerned that Social Partner negotiations have not kept pace with the EU better nreg~~otiated agreements, and to take their concerns seriously, and st~~ulation agenda; Calls on the social partners to embrace better regulation tools, to incresases th~~at the REFIT agenda should not be a pretext for disregarding agreements reached between the social partners~~e use of impact assessments in their negotiations and refer agreements proposing legislative action to the Commission's Impact Assessment Board;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines that the social partners may, in accordance with Article 155 TFEU, conclude agreements that can be implemented uniformly; calls on the Commission to respect the autonomy of the parties and their negotiated agreements, and to take their concerns seriously, and stresses that the ~~REFIT~~Better Regulation agenda should not be a pretext for disregarding agreements reached between the social partners; observes that greater attention should also be paid to the horizontal dimension, particularly with regard to the horizontal social clause (Art. 9 TFEU);

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. UStresses the importance of social dialogue and the respect of the autonomy of the social partners; underlines that the social partners may, in accordance with Article 155 TFEU, conclude agreements that can ~~be implemented uniformly; calls on~~lead to EU legislation at the joint request of the signatory parties; expects the Commission to respect the autonomy of the parties and their negotiated agreements, and to take their concerns seriously, and stresses that the ~~REFIT~~Better Regulation agenda should not be a pretext for disregarding agreements reached between the social partners;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines that the social partners may, in accordance with Article 155 TFEU, conclude agreements that can ~~be implemented uniformly~~lead to European legislation designed in common agreement of the signatory parties; calls on the Commission to respect the autonomy of the parties and their negotiated agreements, and to take their concerns seriously, and stresses that the ~~REFIT~~better regulation agenda should not be a pretext for disregarding agreements reached between the social partners; therefore rejects impact assessments on social partner agreements;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)

- having regard to the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax as regards a standard VAT return

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines that the social partners may, in accordance with Article 155 TFEU, conclude agreements that can be implemented uniformly; calls on the Commission to respect the autonomy of the parties and their negotiated agreements, and to take their concerns seriously, and stresses that the REFIT agenda should not be a pretext for disregarding or circumventing agreements reached between the social partners;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Condemns the Commission’s decision not to submit a legislative proposal on occupational health and safety in hairdressing, despite agreement having been reached between the social partners;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Commission to create a system to compensate for new burdens on undertakings which are imposed by EU regulations, offsetting them with lighter regimes elsewhere within the acquis, in order to monitor administrative burden and to create an incentive for further review of all the legal provisions in force;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes with concern that regulatory Fitness Checks may also lead to years of regulatory uncertainty for business and could put at risk the achievements and commitments of the European Union; in this context underlines the Birds and Habitats Directives importance to environmental protection and to conservation and restoration of biodiversity and natural capital;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Points out that during the previous parliamentary term, the choice between implementing acts and delegated acts caused numerous interinstitutional disputes; considers it important, therefore, for specific guidelines to be drawn up, as requested by the European Parliament in its report adopted on 25 February 2012;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Calls on the Commission to resume its work on the legislative proposals concerning hairdressers, musculoskeletal disorders, passive smoking, carcinogens and mutagens as occupational health and safety issues, because of the high added value at EU level and with a view to social progress under Article 3 TEU;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Welcomes the announcement by the Commission that it intends to simplify the administration of grants under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the European Structural and Investment Funds and Horizon 2020;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2

SGreater transparency and stakeholder consultations

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Welcomes the recognition by the Commission of the important role played by the consultation process in the REFIT programme; points out that, according to Article 11(2) TEU, all EU institutions are required to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society; calls on the institutions to pay special attention to the obligatory and regular dialogue with representative associations, and with civil society, in the negotiations on a new interinstitutional agreement and in the Communication on Better Regulation;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Welcomes the recognition by the Commission of the important role played by the consultation process in the REFIT programme; p~~Points out that, according to Article 11(2) TEU, all EU institutions are required to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society; calls on the institutions to pay special attention to the obligatory and regular dialogue with representative associations, and with civil society, in the negotiations on a new interinstitutional agreement;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 b (new)

- having regard to the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure,

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Observes that only by means of greater transparency can the functioning of the EU be rendered more efficient, thus also enhancing civil society’s confidence in the EU;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Welcomes the commitment of the Commission to improving stakeholder consultation, however, expresses scepticism about the need to have a period time of consultation once a proposal has been adopted; reiterates its belief that there should be a consultation phase on a draft legislative proposal and accompanying draft impact assessment in order to allow stakeholder comments to be incorporated into the proposal ahead of its adoption by the Commission;

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Welcomes in this connection the Commission’s ~~affirmat~~determination to render the functioning of the European Institutions more transparent, inter alia by publishing drafts of delegated acts and establishing online platforms (‘Lighten the Load - Have Your Say’ and ‘REFIT Platform’) on which both civil society and its stakeholder organisations can be involved more effectively in the decision-making process; agrees furthermore with the Commission that dialogue with citizens, social partners and other economic and civil society stakeholders contributes to ~~ensuring~~more transparent, effective and coherent EU legislation;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Welcomes in this connection the Commission's affirmation that dialogue with citizens, social partners and other economic and civil society stakeholders contributes to ensuring transparent, effective and coherent EU legislation; is of the opinion that public consultations via the Commission´s website cannot replace direct consultations with representatives from stakeholders;

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Supports the Commission’s intention of indicating more precisely how it arrives at its proposals, for example in the form of legislative texts or Commission communications;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Observes that, in its better law-making strategy, the Commission significantly upgrades the role of public consultation; notes that in future the Commission will carry out a 12-week public consultation exercise (a) before drafting new legislative proposals or (b) when existing legislative provisions are assessed and their suitability checked or (c) on roadmaps and ex ante impact assessments; notes furthermore that, in addition, after a proposal has been adopted, the Commission will give citizens and stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the Commission proposal within eight weeks and will forward these positions to the Council and Parliament;

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Calls on the Commission, in this light, to conduct a balanced and transparent assessment of the positions of, and feedback from, all participants in the consultation procedure and in particular to ensure that public consultations cannot be misused for their own purposes by well funded and organised stakeholder organisations; calls on the Commission to publish its conclusions from consultations;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 c (new)

9c. Observes that impact assessments should be published only as soon as the Commission has adopted the political initiative concerned; in the interests of the transparency of Commission decisions, considers it necessary that impact assessments should also be published when it has taken the decision not to submit a legislative proposal;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that the Economic and Social Committee, which enjoys consultative status, plays an key role in representing civil society and may, under current legislation, be consulted in advance by Parliament, Council and Commission in all cases where Parliament and Council deem it useful; takes the view that it should be properly consulted on specific issues sufficiently well in advance and advantage taken of its specific areas of expertise for the purposes of better legislation;deleted

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that the Economic and Social Committee, which enjoys consultative status, plays an key role in representing civil society ~~and~~; notes that the Committee of the Regions, which likewise enjoys consultative status, plays a key role in representing regional and local authorities in the EU; notes that both institutions may, under current legislation, be consulted in advance by Parliament, Council and Commission in all cases where Parliament and Council deem it useful; takes the view that, i~~t should b~~f they are properly consulted on specific issues sufficiently well in advance and advantage taken of ~~its~~their specific areas of expertise ~~for~~, that can contribute to the purposes of better legislation;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the smart regulation agenda constitutes an attempt to consolidate efforts to introduce better lawmaking, simplify EU law and reduce administrative and regulatory burdens, and to embark on a path towards good governance grounded in evidence-based policymaking, in which impact assessments and ex-post controls play an essential roleREFIT Programme is a key component of the new Commission strategy for better lawmaking;

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that the Economic and Social Committee, which enjoys consultative status, plays an key role in representing civil society and may, under current legislation, be consulted in advance by Parliament, the Council and the Commission in all cases where Parliament and the Council deem it ~~useful~~appropriate; takes the view that it should be properly consulted on specific issues sufficiently well in advance and advantage taken of its specific areas of expertise for the purposes of better legislation;

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. CReminds the Commission of the latter’s intention of interfering less in areas where Member States are in a better position to find the right answers at national or regional level; calls, in this light, on all institutions to observe the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in their legislative work; considers that there should be stronger involvement on the part of regional and local authorities in EU policy making, in particular by involving Member State expertise and experience at regional and local levels at an early stage in the preparation of legislation; ~~notes that the Committee of the Regions is an important mouthpiece for these levels of representation;~~

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that there should be stronger involvement on the part of regional and local authorities in EU policy making, given the fact that the decentralisation process is much more advanced in some Member States, in particular by involving Member State expertise and experience at regional and local levels at an early stage in the preparation of legislation; notes that the Committee of the Regions is an important mouthpiece for these levels of representation;

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that there should be stronger involvement on the part of regional and local authorities in EU policy making, in particular by involving Member State expertise and experience at regional and local levels at an early stage in the preparation of legislation; notes thate role of the Committee of the Regions ~~is an important mouthpiece for these levels of represent~~with regard to assessing implementation of legislation;

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that there should be stronger involvement on the part of regional and local authorities in EU policy making, in particular by involving Member State expertise and experience at regional and local levels at an early stage in the preparation of legislation; notes that the Committee of the Regions is an important mouthpiece for these levels of representat(does not affect English version;)

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that there should be stronger involvement on the part of regional and local authorities in EU policy making, in particular by involving Member State ~~expertise and~~ experience at regional and local levels at an early stage in the preparation of legislation; notes that the Committee of the Regions is an important mouthpiece for these levels of representation;

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Welcomes the Commission’s intention of making the legislative process more transparent and involving the public and stakeholder representatives more in the whole process;

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Welcomes the Commission’s decision in future also to conduct four-week public consultation exercises on draft delegated acts and major implementing acts before the Member States vote on their position in the committee responsible;

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Supports the introduction of the REFIT panel, which can make a strong and positive contribution to improving implementation on the ground of EU law, and monitoring and responding to administrative and regulatory burdens or unintended consequences which arise when applying obligations arising at EU level; believes that the REFIT panel should not be too burdensome in its processes and deliberations, but should be a body capable of fast responses as well as more detailed work into issues and opportunities in various sectors across Europe; stresses that proposals form this Panel should be actively considered by the Commission, and that the Commission should address the proposals in accordance with the 'comply or explain' principle; believes that the Panel could serve as a platform for businesses of collective groups working both nationally or across Europe to submit direct input supporting the better regulation principles of contributing to achieving less bureaucracy in the regulation applying to their sector;

Amendment 99 #