Activities of Nicola CAPUTO related to 2014/2150(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (A8-0208/2015 - Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann) IT
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on Regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT): state of play and outlook
Amendments (8)
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
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 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
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 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
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 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
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 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
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 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
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 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
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;