Activities of Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN related to 2016/2018(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the interpretation and implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making PDF (340 KB) DOC (127 KB)
Amendments (20)
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to present more inclusive, more detailed and more reliable Work Programmes; requests, in particular, that the Commission Work Programmes clearly indicate the legal nature of each proposal with accurate and realistic timeframes; calls on the Commission to ensure that forthcoming legislative proposals – especially key legislative packages – arrive well before the end of this legislative term, namely early in 2018, thereby giving the co- legislators enough time to exercise their prerogatives in full;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. WelcomesTakes note of the new IIA’s provisions on impact assessments, notably the principle that they may inform but never be a substitute for political decisions or cause undue delays to the legislative process; recalls that the Commission, in the Small Business Act, made a commitment to implementing the ‘think small first’ principle in its policymaking, and that this includes the SME test to assess the impact of forthcoming legislation and administrative initiatives on SMEs27 ; recalls that in its decision of 9 March 2016 on the new IIA Parliament stated that the wording of the new IIA does not sufficiently commit the three Institutions to include SME and competitiveness tests in their impact assessments28 ; underlines that, throughout the legislative procedure and in all assessments of the impact of proposed legislation, particular attention must be paid to the potential impacts on those who have least opportunity to present their concerns to decision takers, including SMEs and others who do not have the advantage of easy access to the Institutions; stresses the importance of taking into account and paying attention to the needs of SMEs at all stages of the legislative cycle and expresses satisfaction that the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines prescribe that potential impacts on SMEs and competitiveness should be considered and reported systematically in all impact assessments; encourages the Commission to consider how the impact on SMEs can be taken into account even better, including in connection with the European added value of a proposal, and intends to follow this issue closely in the years to come; _________________ 27See Parliament’s resolution of 27 November 2014 on the revision of the Commission’s impact assessment guidelines and the role of the SME test (OJ C 289, 9.8.2016, p. 53), paragraph 16. 28See Parliament’s resolution of 9 March 2016 on the conclusion of an Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0081), paragraph 4.underlines that, throughout the legislative procedure and in all assessments of the impact of proposed legislation, particular attention must be paid to the potential impacts on those who have least opportunity to present their concerns to decision takers, including stakeholders, the civil society and trade unions and others who do not have the advantage of easy access to the Institutions and taking also into account the needs of SMEs;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Considers it essential that better regulation should help 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 the reduction of administrative burdens must not lead to a reduction in employment standards or an increase in precarious employment contracts, and that workers in SMEs and micro-enterprises must enjoy the same treatment and high standard of protection as workers in larger companies;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Stresses that evaluation of new rules regarding their impact on SMEs must be in no way detrimental to workers' rights;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)
Paragraph 11 c (new)
11c. Stresses the importance of social dialogue and respect for the autonomy of the social partners; underlines in particular with regard to Article 9 TFEU that the social partners may, in accordance with Article 155 TFEU, conclude agreements that can 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 better regulation agenda should not be a pretext for disregarding or bypassing agreements reached between the social partners; therefore rejects any impact assessments of social partner agreements;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. WelcomesTakes note of the inclusion of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the scope of impact assessments; stresses, in this regard, that impact assessments should always encompass a thorough and rigorous analysis of the compliance of a proposal with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and specify its European added value;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Expresses disappointment at the fact that many Commission proposals, including politically sensitive proposals, were not accompanied by impact assessments, in spite of the commitment made by the Commission in paragraph 13 of the new IIA; points out that experience from committees so far suggests that the quality and level of detail of impact assessments varies from the comprehensive to the rather superficialTakes notes that some Commission proposals, were not accompanied by impact assessments; points out that in the first phase of application of the new IIA, 20 of the 59 Commission proposals included in the 2017 joint declaration were not accompanied by impact assessments; recalls in this regard that, while it is in anysome case foreseen that initiatives which are expected to have a significant social, economic or environmental impact should be accompanied by an impact assessment, the initiatives included in the Commission Work Programme or in the joint declaration should, as a general rule, be accompanied by an impact assessment;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls that replacing the former Impact Assessment Board with the new Regulatory Scrutiny Board is a welcome first step to achieving an independent board; reiterates that the independence, transparency and objectiveness of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and its work must be safeguarded and that the members of the Board should not be subjected to political control29 ; stresses the importance of ensuring that all of the Board’s opinions, including negative ones, are made public and accessible at the same time as the relevant impact assessments are published; _________________ 29 See Parliament’s resolution of 27 November 2014, cited above, paragraph 12; Parliament decision of 9 March 2016, cited above, paragraph 6.
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Points out that Parliament’s Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, established within its administration, assists parliamentary committees and offers them a variety of services, for which sufficient resources must be available so as to ensure that Members and committees receive the best possible support available; notes with appreciation the fact that the Conference of Committee Chairs adopted an updated version of the ‘Impact Assessment Handbook -– Guidelines for Committees’ on 12 September 2017;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls that under paragraph 14 of the new IIA, upon considering Commission legislative proposals, Parliament willcan take full account of the Commission’s impact assessments; recalls in this context that parliamentary committees may invite the Commission to present its impact assessment at a full committee meeting and invites its committees to avail themselves of this opportunity more regularly, and of the possibility to see a presentation of the initial appraisal of the Commission’s impact assessment by Parliament’s own services; points out, however, that this must not lead to a restriction of the room for manoeuvre available to Members of the European Parliament;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. WelcomesTakes note of the possibility thatfor the Commission to complements its own impact assessments during the legislative process; considers that paragraph 16 of the new IIA should be interpreted to the effect that, when requested by Parliament or the Council, the Commission should as a rule promptly provide such complementary impact assessments;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Repeats its position that stakeholders, trade unions and the civil society should be able to provide effective input to the impact assessment process as early as possible in the consultation phase and encourages the Commission to that end to make a more systematic use of roadmaps and inception impact assessments and publish them in due time at the beginning of the impact assessment process;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. WelcomesTakes note that regarding paragraph 23 of the new IIA, wherein the three Institutions agree to systematically consider the use of review clauses in legislation; invites the Commission to include review clauses in its proposals whenever appropriate and, if not, to state its reasons for departing from this general rule;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Considers that, in order to reduce the problems related to ‘gold-plating’, the three Institutions should commit to adopting EU legislation which is clear, easily transposable and which has a specific European added value; recalls that, while additional unnecessary administrative burdens should be avoided, this should not prevent the Member States from taking more ambitious measures and to adopt higher social, environmental and consumer protection standards in cases where only minimum standards are defined by Union law37 ; ; welcomes any decision to do so; _________________ 37 See Parliament’s resolution of 12 April 2016 on Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT): State of Play and Outlook, cited above, paragraph 44.
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. WelcomesTakes note of the Commission’s first annual burden survey undertaken in the context of simplification of EU legislation, for which it carried out a Flash Eurobarometer survey on business perceptions of regulation, interviewing over 10 000 businesses across the 28 Member States, mainly SMEs and reflecting the distribution of business in the EU; draws attention to the findings of the survey, which confirm that the focus on cutting unnecessary costs remains appropriate and suggest that there is a complex interplay of different factors that influence the perception of businesses, which may also be caused by variations in national administrative and legal set ups concerning the implementation of legislation; points out that gold plating and even inaccurate media coverage can also affect such perception; agrees with the Commission that the only way to identify concretely what can actually be simplified, streamlined or eliminated is to seek views from all stakeholders and trade unions on specific pieces of legislation or various pieces of legislation that apply to a particular sector; calls on the Commission to refine the annual burden survey, on the basis of the lessons learnt from the first edition, to apply transparent and verifiable data collection methods, to pay particular regard to SMEs’ needs, and to include both actual and perceived burdens;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)
Paragraph 54 a (new)
54a. 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 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 b (new)
Paragraph 54 b (new)
54b. Stresses that a European standard generally replaces 28 national standards, thereby underpinning the single market and cutting down on bureaucracy;