2015/2319(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas its Committee on Budgets, in light of the lack of transparency ~~and the imbalanced composition~~ of a large number of expert groups (EGs), and seeing the need to make sure that the composition of EGs strikes the right balance in terms of expertise and of views represented, adopted budgetary reserves in 2011 and 2014 and formulated demands for their reform;

Amendment 10 #

Clare MOODY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Urges the Commission to adopt a more proactive approach to the participation of under-represented groups such as civil society and trade unions, to tackle existing information asymmetries, and to develop, in dialogue with these groups, a special allowance system for that purpose;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Urg~~Invites the Commission to ~~adopt a more proactive approach to~~explore, in collaboration with the legislator and with civil society, ways to facilitate and encourage the participation of under- represented groups, in EGs, and to tackle existing information asymmetries~~, and to develop, in dialogue with these groups, a special allowance system for that purpose~~;

Amendment 12 #

Helga TRÜPEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Urges the European Commission to ensure the full consultation of those groups currently underrepresented when putting forward proposals for the reform of the expert groups.

Amendment 13 #

Clare MOODY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Requests the Commission to put forward a plan for action in line with the recommendations of the European Ombudsman; this plan should include deadlines for action and progress to ensure timely results; it should also be presented with sufficient time for the Parliament to consider before it prepares its position on the Budget 2017

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas a recent study it commissioned1 has identified a widespread lack of transparency and an at times imbalance ~~in EG~~d composition of EGs; __________________ 1 Policy Department D Budgetary Affairs, Composition of the Commission`s expert groups and the status of the register of expert groups, 2015.

Amendment 3 #

Helga TRÜPEL

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas balanced composition and transparency are critical preconditions for the expertise to adequately reflect the needs for regulatory action and fosters its legitimacy in the eyes of European citizens.

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that despite the progress that resulted from the 2011 budgetary reserve, the Commission has so far failed to alter the horizontal rules for EGs and their practices in a way that would meet Parliament’s requests for transparency, and that the number of EGs in which there is an imbalance has increased ~~since 2013~~from 69 in 2013 (corresponding to 8% of all EGs) to 72 in 2015 (9% of all EGs);

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Points out, in this context, and with regard to par. 34-45 of the Ombudsman's aforementioned opinion, that, although the Comission has not yet formally defined its concept of 'balance', the latter is not to be understood as the result of an arithmetic exercise, but rather as the result of efforts to ensure that the members of an EG, together, possess the necessary technical expertise and breadth of perspectives to deliver on the mandate of the EG in question; finds that the concept of balance should, therefore, be understood as tied to the specific mandate of each single EG; considers that the criteria to assess whether an EG is balanced should include the tasks of the group, the technical expertise required, the stakeholders who would be most likely affected by the matter, the organisation of groups of stakeholders, and the appropriate ratio of economic and non- economic interests;

Amendment 6 #

Helga TRÜPEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Underlines that the trust of European citizens in the European Union suffers from a lack of transparency and the over- reliance on economic actors in EU-law making and does hence underline that the effective reform of the EC's expert groups system will make the EU more legitimate.

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1 c. Welcomes the Commission's public announcement that the revised framework for EGs will take up a number of Parliament's and the Ombudsman's suggestions, such as mandatory open calls for application, an improved register, mandatory registration in the Transparency Register for stakeholder representatives, a definition, for each EG, of the profiles needed to ensure a balanced composition, as well as mandatory declarations on conflicts of interest, which will be put on the register;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1 d. Urges the Commission to implement, moreover, the Ombudsman's recommendations on transparency, namely, that the agendas, background documents and minutes of EG meetings should be published, unless, in exceptional cases and with the Commission's consent, a majority of members decides otherwise, and that the published minutes should be as meaningful as possible and set out the positions expressed by the members;

Amendment 9 #

Clare MOODY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Urges the Commission, to follow best practice and build~~ing~~ on existing positive examples, to ensure a systematic implementation of improved horizontal rules, including an adequate oversight mechanism for all directorates- general in order to ensure coherent practice;

source: 578.735

2016/09/09 CONT 57 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas it has expressed its concerns with regard to the functioning of the previous framework for Commission expert groups of November 20103 which had been set up with the aim of introducing significant operational innovations to strengthen the transparency and coordination of inter- institutional work; __________________ 3 C(2010)7649 final of 10.11.2010.

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission Decision of 30 May 2016 establishing horizontal rules on the creation and operation of Commission expert groups, but ~~regrets~~strongly disagrees with the fact that, despite many non- governmental organisations having expressed their interest, the Commission did not organise a full public consultation;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Recognises that, through the adoption of the new horizontal rules, many concerns previously expressed by Parliament have been met, in particular those concerning the need for public calls for applications for the selection of the members of expert groups and concerning the revision of the Register of Commission expert groups and the creation of synergy between this Register, the Transparency Register of the Commission and Parliament, as well as those rules relating to the need to avoid conflicts of interest, especially of a financial nature and regarding incompatibility, in particular as regards experts who are appointed in a personal capacity;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Recognises~~Points out that, through the adoption of the new horizontal rules, many concerns previously expressed by Parliament have seemingly been met, in particular those concerning the need for public calls for applications for the selection of the members of expert groups and concerning the revision of the Register of Commission expert groups and the creation of synergy between this Register, the Transparency Register of the Commission and Parliament, as well as those rules relating to the need to avoid conflicts of interest, in particular as regards experts who are appointed in a personal capacity;

Amendment 13 #

Julia PITERA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Recalls that a lack of transparency has a negative effect on the trust which Europe's citizens have in the EU institutions; the effective reform of the Commission's expert groups system, based on clear principles of transparency and balanced composition, will improve the availability and reliability of data, which will in turn result in an increase in people's trust in the EU;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises that the new rules should apply to all Commission expert groups, irrespective of their title (thus including special, high-level or other ‘extraordinary’ groups, and formal or informal groups), that are not exclusively composed of representatives of Member States or governed by Commission Decision of 20 May 1998 on the establishment of Sectoral Dialogue Committees promoting the Dialogue between the social partners at European level6 ; reiterates that a wide extension of the principle of participation in the expert groups is essential to ensure an effective reform of the system; __________________ 6 OJ L 225, p. 27.

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises that the new rules should apply strictly to all Commission expert groups, irrespective of their title (thus including special, high-level or other ‘extraordinary’ groups, and formal or informal groups), that are not exclusively composed of representatives of Member States or governed by Commission Decision of 20 May 1998 on the establishment of Sectoral Dialogue Committees promoting the Dialogue between the social partners at European level;6 · __________________ 6 OJ L 225, p. 27. OJ L 225, p. 27.

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises that the new rules should apply to all Commission expert groups regardless, irrespective of their title (thus including special, high-level or other ‘extraordinary’ groups, and formal or informal groups), that are not exclusively composed of representatives of Member States or governed by Commission Decision of 20 May 1998 on the establishment of Sectoral Dialogue Committees promoting the Dialogue between the social partners at European level;6 · __________________ 6 OJ L 225, p. 27.

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission, when creating new expert groups or changing the composition of existing ones, to state clearly in the public call for applications, in all possible forms, how it defines a balanced composition and which interests it seeks to be represented, and to justify any possible deviation from the balanced composition as defined beforehand, when the expert groups are established;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission, when creating new expert groups or changing the composition of existing ones, to state clearly in the public call for applications how it defines a balanced composition ~~and~~, which interests it seeks to be represented, and why, and also to justify any possible deviation from the balanced composition as defined beforehand, when the expert groups are established;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to set up a complaints mechanism, if the definition of balanced composition is contested by interested stakeholders; calls for Parliament to be associated in this control mechanism;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas, in particular, its Committee on Budgets, in light of the lack of transparency and the imbalanced composition of a certain number of expert groups, and given the need to make sure that the composition of expert groups strikes the right balance in terms of expertise and of views represented, adopted budgetary reserves in 2011 and 2014, and has formulated demands which have not yet been accepted for their reform;

Amendment 20 #

Derek VAUGHAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to ~~set up a~~investigate whether a new complaints mechanism, is required if the definition of balanced composition is contested by interested stakeholders or whether current arrangements are adequate;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to set up a n independent complaints mechanism, if the definition of balanced composition is contested by interested stakeholders;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to set up a complaints mechanism, including if the definition of balanced composition is contested by interested stakeholders;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission forthwith to set up a complaints mechanism, if the definition of balanced composition is contested by interested stakeholders;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Note~~Recalls that in the past it was not always possible for the Commission to find sufficient experts representing SMEs, consumers, trade unions or other organisations of general public interest, and that this was often caused by the costs involved, either in taking up leave or, for example in the case of SMEs, in finding replacement for the time spent in the expert groups, hereafter referred to as ‘alternative costs’;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Requests, therefore, the Commission to ~~apply~~explore ways to facilitate and encourage the participation of under- represented organisations or social groups in expert groups, by assessing, inter alia, its provisions for reimbursement of expenses ~~generously, in order~~, including possible ways to cover outlays for any such ‘alternative costs’’;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Requests the Commission to apply its provisions for reimbursement of expenses generously, in order to cover outlays for any such ‘alternative costs’’, while duly respecting the principle of proportionality;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Requests the Commission to apply its provisions for reimbursement of expenses ~~generously~~in an efficient and equitable manner, in order to cover outlays for any such ‘alternative costs’’;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Asks the Commission to assess the development of an allowance system that supports underrepresented groups in acquiring the expertise necessary for a fully effective participation in the expert group;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission to make it possible for European non- governmental organisations to be represented in the expert groups by representatives of their national member organisations, when provided with a clear mandate from the European organisations;deleted

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the European Ombudsman has in her strategic inquiry5 , put forward a recommendation concerning the composition of Commission expert groups~~; __________________ 5~~, in particular emphasising the need for greater transparency within the expert groups; __________________ 5 OI/6/2014/NF. OI/6/2014/NF.

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the Commission to make it possible for European non-governmental organisations to be represented in the expert groups by representatives of their national member organisations, when provided with a clear mandate from the European organisations, in a purely advisory capacity;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the Commission to make sure that, even if, despite specific arrangements, it is still not possible to find sufficient experts representing all relevant interests, the expert group concerned will take all appropriate measures~~, for example by weighted voting procedures,~~ to make sure that the final reports of these expert groups will effectively be representing all relevant interests in a balanced manner;

Amendment 32 #

Marco VALLI, Marco ZANNI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls that both Parliament and the European Ombudsman has recommended to the Commission to make the deliberations of expert groups public, unless a qualified majority of their members decide that a specific meeting or part of a meeting would need to be secret, and regrets that the Commission has persisted in a system in which the meetings remain secret unless a simple majority of the members of expert groups decides that the deliberations should be made public; considers it essential to implement the greatest possible transparency and calls on the Commission to provide for the meetings and minutes to be made public;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls that both Parliament and the European Ombudsman has recommended to the Commission to make the deliberations of expert groups public~~, unless a qualified majority of their members decide that a specific meeting or part of a meeting would need to be secret,~~ and regrets that the Commission has persisted in a system in which the meetings remain secret unless a simple majority of the members of expert groups decides that the deliberations should be made public;

Amendment 34 #

Julia PITERA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls that both Parliament and the European Ombudsman has recommended to the Commission to make the agendas, background documents, minutes of meetings and deliberations of expert groups public, unless a qualified majority of their members decide that a specific meeting or part of a meeting would need to be secret, and regrets that the Commission has persisted in a system in which the meetings remain secret unless a simple majority of the members of expert groups decides that the deliberations should be made public;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Recalls that both Parliament and the European Ombudsman hasve recommended to the Commission to make the deliberations of expert groups public, ~~unless~~considers that this principle should still be valid even if a qualified majority of their members decide that a specific meeting or part of a meeting would need to be secret, and regrets that the Commission has persisted in a system in which the meetings remain secret unless a simple majority of the members of expert groups decides that the deliberations should be made public;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Invites the Commission to develop specific guidelines explaining how it interprets the provision that the minutes of the expert groups shall be meaningful and complete, especially when the meetings are not public, and urges the Commission to provide, in this regard, the maximum transparency possible, including publication of the agenda, background documents, voting records and detailed minutes, including dissenting opinions in line with the recommendation of the European Ombudsman;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Invites the Commission to develop specific guidelines -in consultation with stakeholders including the European Parliament- explaining how it interprets the provision that the minutes of the expert groups shall be meaningful and complete, especially when the meetings are not public, and urges the Commission to provide, in this regard, the maximum transparency possible, in line with the recommendation of the European Ombudsman;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Invites the Commission to develop specific guidelines explaining how it interprets the provision that the minutes of the expert groups shall be meaningful and complete, especially when the meetings are not public, and urges the Commission to provide, in this regard, the maximum transparency and public information possible, in line with the recommendation of the European Ombudsman;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Invites the Commission forthwith to develop specific guidelines explaining how it interprets the provision that the minutes of the expert groups sh~~all~~ould be meaningful and complete, ~~especially when~~and that the meetings ~~are not~~should be public, and urges the Commission to provide, in this regard, the maximum transparency possible, in line with the recommendation of the European Ombudsman;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital Ε

Ε. whereas ~~it recognises that~~ before adopting the Decision, the Commission ~~did~~ engaged with representatives of Parliament and with the European Ombudsman;

Amendment 40 #