Activities of Helmut SCHOLZ related to 2021/2166(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Better regulation: joining forces to make better laws (debate)
Opinions (1)
Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws
Amendments (14)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s communication’s aim to make the approach to the Better law-making more dynamic and adaptive to further developments; 1 COM(2021)0219.insists nevertheless that its operational aspects will become clearer only with the revision of the Better regulation guidelines and toolbox, which will be thoroughly scrutinized by the Parliament; Or. en
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the efforts to consolidate the consultation process and the commitment to report on each public consultation within eight weeks of its closure; calls for improved systematic assessments of public consultations and for the Commission to increase its outreach activities and measures to promote greater participation; calls on the Commission to better engage with its representations in the Member States, with consultative bodies on the EU level and with national authorities with the view to disseminating more information about public consultations;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Reiterates that there is a need to fully engagcalls the rapidly changing character of citizens’ views about the impact of the EU governance on the establishment of permanent their daily life and impact on future participatory mechanisms to further developments against the backdrop facilitate and engage citizens’ of increasingly social media driven participation in the EU decision- information society, establishment making process; supports awareness- of which accelerates and increases raising activities for these awareness functioning of the EU mechanisms and highlights the need decision-making; reiterates that to establish them at the national, there is a need to fully engage regional and local levels for adequate citizens in the EU decision- making process; reiterates its call for horizontal and vertical coordination process; reiterates its call for the among institutions at different levels; establishment of permanent participatory mechanisms to further facilitate and engage citizens’ participation in the EU decision- making process beyond the act of voting and other channels and instruments; supports awareness- raising activities for these mechanisms and highlights the need to establish them at the national, regional and local levels for adequate horizontal and vertical coordination among institutions at different levels;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the acknowledged lack ofimpact assessments for several key of impact assessments for several key legislative files, which can only legislative files, which can only partly be partly be attributed to the COVID-19 attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and pandemic; welcomes the Commission’s commitment to publish a staff working document together with the proposal or within the three months of its publication;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Acknowledges the need for the co- 2 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1. 3 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1. 4 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1. legislators to conduct impact legislators to conduct impact assessments assessments when substantially when substantially amending legislative amending legislative proposals, in proposals, in line with paragraph 15 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making45 (IIA on BLM); encourages the establishment of internal procedures for the Parliament to produce its own impact assessments on substantial amendments and the committees to avail themselves fully of the possibility to request expertise for such amendments;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5a (new)
Paragraph 5a (new)
5a (new) Stresses that the updated toolbox on better law-making, in particular the “do not significant harm” principle, shall consider the costs that may arise from inaction, notably on the climate and environment, as well as the social dimension, and the cumulative effects arising from delay in action;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5b
Paragraph 5b
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls the commitment of all three institutions to setting up a joint legislative register up a Joint legislative register, to allow for an increased transparency of the legislative process and allow the citizens and both informed and general public to follow the evolution of legislative text in a clear and comprehensive way; insists on the need to make thissuch joint portal fully operational and transparent as soon as possible and to include automatically all publicly disclosed documents under Regulation (EU) 1049/200110 automatically; deplores the persistent lack of transparency in the Council’s decision-making process andin the Council as well as practice of over-classifyingication of documents and of applying an excessively broad interpretation of the exceptions included under the Regulation (EU) 1049/2001; 10 OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43., in particular with regard to the protection of decision-making process and protection of legal advice, contrary to the principle of overriding public interest in the disclosure of related documents; Or. en
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6a (new)
Paragraph 6a (new)
6a (new) Insist that the effective implementation of the EU law is essential in order to enhance citizen’s trust in EU policies and institutions; recalls that under Article 197 TFEU, such implementation shall be regarded as o matter of common interest for the Member States and stresses the need for them to avoid gold-platting when transposing EU legislation;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Warns against a mechanical application of the ‘one in’ / ‘one out’ principle, which results in an excessive focus on regulatory burdens, which may lead the consideration of benefits to be neglected; , including potential impact of withdrawal of legislation already implemented at the Member States domestic regulatory framework;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls the importance of maintaining close contact between the co- legislators in advance of interinstitutional negotiations, including by inviting representatives of other institutions to informal exchanges of views on a regular basis, in line with the commitment outlined in paragraph 34 of the IIA on BLM; regrets that this commitment has not given rise to any new structures of cooperation neither to systematic practice for facilitate such exchange; suggests that the co-legislators agree on a code of good practice in that respect;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Council and the Welcomes the commitment of the Commission to assess jointly with Commission’s President to support the Parliament the extent to which the right of initiative of the European IIA on BLM should be revised to Parliament and its commitment to always eliminate possible barriers to respond with a legislative act to the Parliament’s ability to exercise its requests under Article 225 TFEU; calls on power to propose legislative the Council and the Commission to assess initiatives; jointly with Parliament the extent to which the IIA on BLM should be revised to eliminate possible barriers to Parliament’s ability to exercise its power to propose legislative initiatives; considers that the Framework Agreement might be revised to increased facilitation of this right; highlights the need to also clarify differences between the various types of EP reports and clarify the action requested from the Commission;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for the need take into full Emphasizes the need to consider consideration the Conference on the the issue of the Right of initiative at the Future of Europe’s deliberations on Conference on future of Europe, as it the participation of citizens in the EU would strengthen the EU’s democratic decision-making process, in legitimacy and further empower EU particular the recommendations of citizens; calls for the need take into full the Citizens Panel No 2, in particular consideration the Conference on the Future sub stream 4.2, No 29, No 32, sub of Europe’s deliberations on the stream 2.1, No 10 and No 11 thereof; participation of citizens in the EU decision- making process, in particular the recommendations of the Citizens Panel No 2, in particular sub stream 4.2, No 29, No 32, sub stream 2.1, No 10 and No 11 thereof; considers that the recommendations of the panels clearly demonstrate that the citizens call for more transparency of the public debate in the EU, for more outreach and more information to be provided by the EU institutions with active use of all the channels of communication while emphasizing the role of the social media, which should be accompanying the decision-making in the EU, including legislative processes;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11a (new)
Paragraph 11a (new)
11a (new) Insists on the strong links between the implementation of the Next Generation EU recovery package with the objective of ensuring stronger resilience of EU societies and the need of EU institutions to reach out to the citizens of the Union in order to raise awareness about fundamental nature of these political tasks and their execution; believes that such outreach should ultimately contribute to more flexible and more far-reaching inter-institutional decision-making capable to respond in a robust and decisive manner to the experiences of the pandemic;