Activities of Daniel DALTON related to 2017/2003(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
European agenda for the collaborative economy - Online platforms and the Digital Single Market (debate)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on a European agenda for the collaborative economy
Amendments (49)
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the emergence of the collaborative economy in transport and tourism services, acknowledging that, with an appropriate regulatory framework in place, it has potential tond its generation of new entrepreneurial opportunities, jobs and growth whilst provideing more varied andefficient, affordable and varied services to customers and to boost new forms of cooperative exchanges between citizens in the EU;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Notes that customer satisfaction with collaborative economy transport and tourism services is much higher than with traditional services;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Welcomes the opportunities the collaborative economy provides to small businesses, local economies and rural areas, particularly in the tourism sector, but also notably in the transport sector as well; furthermore notes that travellers with lower incomes particularly benefit from the collaborative economy;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Highlights that in the tourism sector home-sharing represents a great use of resources and under-used space, especially in areas that do not traditionally benefit from tourism;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1 d. Condemns, in this regard, regulations being imposed by some public authorities which seek to restrict the supply of tourist accommodation via the collaborative economy;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1 e. Welcomes the opportunities the collaborative economy offers for flexible working hours that fit around other commitments, helping to bring people left out of the workplace back into employment;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the Member States’ response to the development of collaborative business models has so far been very fragmented; welcomes in this regard the Commission communication on a European agenda for the collaborative economy, but regrets that it fails to establish an explicit harmonised legal framework for the collaborative economyalongside the sharing of best practices, enourages the Commission and Member States to ensure the full implementation of existing rules;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that, if developed in a responsible manner, the collaborative economy maywill continue to create significant opportunities for citizens and consumers, who benefit from enhanced competition, tailored services, increased choice and lower prices;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Recognises that no two collaborative economy business models are the same, that the diversity of the collaborative economy is one of its strengths, and that therefore any overarching regulation of the entire collaborative economy would not be practicable;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that, in the context of the collaborative economy, issues related to consumer protection, liability allocation, insurance schemes, social protection of workers (whether they are employed or self-employed) and data protection are the most urgent ones, and expects a regulatory intervention in that regard; emphasises that a regulatory frameworkhighly relevant, though not exclusive to collaborative business models; emphasises that any new proposals for regulation in these areas should follow an evidence- based approach, including examination of whether existing rules are being properly implemented, and should not be exclusive to collaborative business models, but rather on a sectoral basis; the regulatory framework in the EU transport sector should creatensure a level playing field, foster innovations and contribute to the overall development and fulfilment of the EU transport policy goals, such as transport decarbonisation, territorial cohesion, affordability, accessibility and safety;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Agrees that the collaborative economy could also generates new entrepreneurial opportunities, jobs and growth, and could plays an important role in making the economic system not only more efficient, but also socially and environmentally sustainable;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Believes that, society benefits through sharing economy business models, from a better allocation of resources and assets that are otherwise under-used, which in turn contributes to greater sustainability in consumption and supports the circular economy;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Acknowledges, at the same time, that the collaborative economy iscan having a profounde a significant impact on long-established business models; underlinestands the riskchallenges of having different legal standards for similar economic actors; is concerned about the risk of redubalancing consumer protection with consumer empowerment, workers’' rights andwith workers opportunities and the potential for tax compliance; acknowledges the effectnd tax transparency; recognises that the collaborative businesses are having on the urbaneconomy affects both urban and rural environments;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points to the risks of increasing regulatory grey areas, the consequent disregard of existing regulations and the fragmentation of the Single MarketBelieves that regulation needs to be fit for purpose for the digital age; action to address regulatory grey areas and the fragmentation of the Single Market must be future proof and should underpin, not undermine digital innovations; is aware that, if not properly governed, these changes could result in legal uncertainty about applicable rules and constraints in exercising individual rights;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers the development of a dynamic and clear legal environment to be of paramount importance for the collaborative economy to flourish in the EU; notes that there are already many examples of using self and co-regulation to achieve these goals;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls the potential of collaborative economy models to significantly improve the efficiency of the transport system and reduce undesired externalities of traffic such as congestion and emissions from traffic; emphasises the need tobenefits of fully integrateing collaborative transport services into the conventional transport system and the need to avoid administrative systems or legislative measures which might lead to exclusion of collaborative transport services from transport planning and operations, with a view to enabling the creation of smooth complete travel chains and the provision of new forms of sustainable mobility;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Welcomes the fact that the digital revolution has enabled seamless multimodal ticketing and travel in a single journey for transport users with collaborative economy apps;
Amendment 110 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. UrgNotes the need tofor clearly distinguish between legitimate ride- sharing definitions to provide legal certainty, and in the provision of commercial transporting services (i.e. ‘non- professional’ vs ‘professional’ service provision) in EU terminology, and urges the Commissiocontext of transport to differentiate between carpooling on the one hand and sharing of costs in tohe come up with proposals to adapt Union legislation accordingly; considers the monetary threshold to be one advisable way to make this distinctionntext of an existing trip the driver planned for his own purpose, and regulated passenger transport services;
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 120 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Member States to establish measurEncourages the sharing of best practices between Member States to reduce the risk and possibility of the occurrence of grey economy activities and tax avoidance in accordance with collaborative economy services, and invites the Commission to facilitate an exchange of best practises between tax authorities and stakeholders with a view to developing appropriate solutions for payments of taxes in the sharing economy;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is concerned that, while a largeNotes that many parts of the nascent collaborative economy aremains unregulated, covered by national and local regulation; recognises however that some significant differences are emerging among Member States due to national, regional and local regulations, as well as case-law, posing a risk of fragmentation of the Single Market;
Amendment 133 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Warns of the danger that, without an appropriate legal framework, intermediation platforms might serve as a suitable seedbed forRecognises there might be a potential risk of intermediation platforms encouraging new monopolies, and therefore asksreminds Member States and the Commission of the need to monitor the development of the market and, where needed, to propose measures to protect the competitiveness of European companies in a European market address clear market failures when they occur;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the Commission’'s intent to tackle the current fragmentation, but regrets that its communication did not bring sufficient clarity about the applicability of existing EU legislation to different collaborative economy models; calls for a clear enforcement framework of the consumer acquis and of the Services Directive; encourages the Commission and Member States to ensure the full implementation of existing rules, using infringement procedures whenever incorrect or insufficient implementation of the legislation is identified;
Amendment 141 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Recognises the role that collaborative platforms self-governing capacities can take in the ongoing improvement of the regulatory environment by correcting market failures themselves which have traditionally been addressed through regulation;
Amendment 142 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. Stresses that while online intermediaries are subject to and need to comply with all laws of the European Union, including consumer protection and competition, the liability safe harbours of intermediaries are essential to the protection of the openness of the internet, fundamental rights, legal certainty and innovation in the transport sector;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Agrees that market access requirements for collaborative platforms and service providers must be necessary, justified and proportionate, and that this assessment shcould be dependent in certain but not all circumstances, take into consideration whether services are provided by professional or private individuals, making peer providers subject to lighter legal requirements; recognises the need for both incumbents and new operators and services linked to digital platforms to develop in a business-friendly competitive environment, with transparency with regard to legislative changes;
Amendment 151 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to include representatives of the collaborative economy in stakeholder dialogues and impact assessment procedures.
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Urges the Commission to provide further guidelines to Member States with a view to laying down effective criteria for distinguand Member States to work together to agree guidelines for distinguishing between peers and professionals, which is crucial for the fair development of the collaborative economy; requests the European Commission to conduct a study of existing thresholds in the collaborative economy across Member States in order to get a better understanding of exishting between peers and professionals, which is crucial for the fair developmentpractices and to be able to analyse the best possible way forward, bearing in mind differing economic realities and purchasing powers across Member States; recognises that a one-size fits all solution may not be appropriate; notes that such guidelines should take into account the fact that there may be several definitions of what is a professional depending ofn the collaborative economyarea of law considered; Stresses that an important criteria to distinguish a peer from a professional is whether the user is making a profit or only sharing costs;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Stresses the need to provide clear definitions so as to offer platforms and their users legal certainty and ensure the development of the collaborative economy in the EU; notes that in the mobility sector, it is important to clearly differentiate between (i) carpooling on the one hand and sharing of costs in the context of an existing trip the driver planned for his own purpose, and (ii) regulated passenger transport services on the other hand;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Draws attention, at the same time, to the risk that establishing thresholds may create a disparity between micro and small businesses on the one side, and peers on the other; calls therefore for the legislation applicable to professional service providers to be revised in order to level the playing field among comparable categories ofa full analysis of potential impacts to be ascertained before considering whether the legislation applicable to professional service providers should be revised and to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens; cautions against calls for legislative actions which stifle innovation;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Believes that consumers should enjoy a high and effective level of protection, regardless of whether services are provided by professionals or peers; highlights, in particular, the importance of protecting consumersconsumer protection in peer-to-peer transactions; welcomes the Commission’'s initiative to ensure the adequacy of consumer law and preventing abuse of the collaborative economy; recognises that some forms of protection can be delivered by platforms without the need for regulation;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Emphasises that, in many cases, rules for protecting consumers are still needed in the collaborative economy; also believes in many cases the collaborative economy empowers consumers through additional information and choice, though there are some areas where this is not the case, especially due to persisting asymmetric information or lack of choice;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to clarify the collaborative platforms liability regime, which could enhance responsible behaviour and increasStresses that while online intermediaries are subject to and need to comply with all laws of the European Union, including consumer protection and competition, the liability safe harbours of intermediaries are essential to the protection of the openness of the internet, fundamental rights, legal certainty and innovation; recognises in this respect that the provisions on intermediary liability in the e-Commerce Directive muser confidencet remain future-proof and technologically neutral;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Commission to further scrutinise EU legislation in order to reduce uncertainties concerning the rules applicable to collaborative business models and to assess whether new or amended rules are desirablappropriate;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Believes that any new regulation should leverage platforms’' self-governing capacities; is convinced that collaborative platforms themselves couldan take an active role in suchcreating a new regulatory environment by correcting many asymmetric information and other market failures which have been traditionally addressed through regulation, especially by digital trust-building mechanisms;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Strongly believes, at the same time, that this self-regulating capacity does not undercut the need for regulation, especially for market failures that platforms cannot address and for other nWhereas self-regulation has proved to be a good alternative to ex-ante regulation, especially in the area of the collaborative economy thanks to new technological developments such as two- way rating mechanisms; notes that customer satisfaction with collabormative goals (e.g. reversing inequalities, boosting fairness, inclusiveness, and openness, etc.)economy services is much higher than in the traditional sectors; believes, at the same time, that this self-regulating capacity does not replace the need for regulation, such as the Services and eCommerce Directives, and EU consumer law to ensure coherence and complementarity;
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Points out the crucial importance of clarifying methods by which decisNotes that it may be useful to assess the use of data where it may have different impacts on different segments of society and to prevent discriminations, based on algorithmut recalls that the European Union has alre taken and of guaranteeing algorithm fairness; emphasises the need to verify the potential harm to privacy caused by big data, to assess the impact of data on different segments of society and to prevent dady developed a comprehensive framework for data protection and applies the principles of equality and non- discrimination in its policies; strongly believes that algorithms or other similar intellectual property or commercial secrets should not be undermined by vague or poorly defined principles, as thisc rimination; callsks undermining the very value of the products or services themselves; nevertheless con the Commission to lay down effective critsiders that the use of automated pricing mechanisms or similar tools which unduly influence commercial for developing algorithm accountability principles for information-based collaborative platformsconsumer decision making and run counter to EU competition law should be examined, as part of the EU's role on antitrust policy;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Is convincedBelieves that a common EU horizontal and harmonised regulatory framework, consisting of a combination of general principles and specific rules, needs to be developed, in addition to anyregulatory framework must be pro- innovation, technologically neutral and future proof and establish sector-ial specific regulation that might be neededations whilst recognising general principles;
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Believes that the existing EU regulatory framework should continue to be applied, and that future changes consisting of general principles and specific rules should be considered in response to any gaps or needs on a case- by-case basis, in line with better regulation principles.
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Encourages the Commission to foster a level playing field for competition among collaborative platforms; stresses the importance of identifying and addressing barriers to the emergence and scaling-up of collaborative businesses, especially start- ups; underlines in this context the need for free flow of data, data portability and interoperability, which facilitate switching between platforms and prevent lock-in, and which are key factors for open and fair competition and empowering users of collaborative platforms; acknowledges the need to balance greater data portability and interoperability, where necessary, with the legitimate interests of market players that invest in product development to ensure a fair return on their investments and thereby contribute to innovation;
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Is concerned about the difficulties that have emerged so farthat there may have been some difficulties in some sectors in relation to tax compliance and enforcement, despite the increased traceability of economic transactions via online platforms; recognises that these issues have been addressed in certain Member States; therefore invites the European Commission and Member States to facilitate an exchange of best practices between tax authorities and stakeholders to allow Member States to develop appropriate solutions for payments of taxes in the sharing economy;
Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Encourages the Member States to agree on a uniform set of information that businesses must disclose to tax authorities in the framework of their tax information duties; points out that existing collaboration between national authorities and companies that exploit the opportunities afforded by digital technology have resulted in more effective, accountable and transparent tax collection systems, thereby enabling all parties to fulfil their tax and social security obligations;
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Agrees that functionally similar tax obligations should be applied to businesses providing comparable services, and is convinced; notes that taxes should be paid where profits are generatedin full accordance with national and local taxation laws;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31 a. Recognises that, the sharing economy creates opportunities for entrepreneurship and empowers people from all demographics and across the generations;
Amendment 303 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Underlines the paramount importance of safeguarding workers’employment rights in collaborative services, of avoiding social dumping, and of guaranteeing fair working conditions and adequate social protectiontaking into account its potential for more flexible forms of employment and identifying new forms of employment and enhancing the rights and protection of genuine self-employed workers;
Amendment 314 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Is concerned about the risk that on-demand workers might not enjoy genuine legal protection, and that collaborative platforms might pass on their risks to workers with no entrepreneurial responsibilitiesBelieves that on-demand workers should enjoy appropriate legal protection;
Amendment 319 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33 a. Notes that the collaborative economy creates new, flexible jobs for young people entering the labour market, self-employed workers and marginalised groups that might otherwise be excluded from the labour market;
Amendment 338 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Believes that there is ample room for manoeuvre for national, regional and local authorities to adopt context-specific regulationguidelines in order to address clearly identified public interest objectives with proportionate measures fully in line with EU legislation; calls on the Commission therefore to support the Member States in their policy-making and in adopting rules consistent with EU law;
Amendment 347 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Notes that first movers have been cities, where urban conditions such as population density and physical proximity favour the adoption of collaborative practices; is also convinced that the collaborative economy can offers significant opportunities to inner peripheries and rural areas, tooas well as to regions and tourism more generally;