Activities of Evelyn REGNER related to 2014/2150(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (22)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that REFIT represents a first step towards reducing the burden of regulation on businesses and eliminating barriers to growth and job creWelcomes the Commission’s REFIT communication and considers REFIT to be an important instrument for better regulation;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Supports the Commission’s commitment on cutting red tape and better regulation; believes that cutting red tape should deliver proportionate, evidence-based protection for workers, whilmust not lead to reduced protection for workers, and that it should at the same time ensuringe that businesses can grow, create jobs and boost competitiveness; notes that deregulation and better regulation are not mutually exclusive, in order to create high- quality permanent jobs;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the decision of Commission President Juncker to entrust the First Vice- President of the Commission with the portfolio of better regulation, which underlines the high political importance of this topic;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes efforts to identify genuine opportunities for simplification of legislation; stresses the need for simpler, clearly-worded rules that remove complexity and can be implemented in a simple manner in order to improve compliance, particularly, including in the area of health, safety and employment legislation;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses that the freedom of Members of the European Parliament to carry out their political work must not be restricted in any way; this also includes the possibility of making significant changes to legislative proposals;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Sharply criticises, therefore, the Commission’s proposal indirectly to restrict the room for manoeuvre available to Members of the European Parliament in their legislative work by means of impact assessments on substantive amendments to Commission proposals;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the CommisDraws attention to Parliament‘s decision’s indication that the maternity leave directive should be considered for withdrawalof 15 January 2015 not to withdraw the maternity leave directive;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that the social partners may, in accordance with Article 155 TFEU, conclude agreements that can be implemented uniformly; calls on the Commission to respect the autonomy of the parties and their negotiated agreements, and to take their concerns seriously, and stresses that the REFITBetter Regulation agenda should not be a pretext for disregarding agreements reached between the social partners; observes that greater attention should also be paid to the horizontal dimension, particularly with regard to the horizontal social clause (Art. 9 TFEU);
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Condemns the Commission’s decision not to submit a legislative proposal on occupational health and safety in hairdressing, despite agreement having been reached between the social partners;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Calls on the Commission to resume its work on the legislative proposals concerning hairdressers, musculoskeletal disorders, passive smoking, carcinogens and mutagens as occupational health and safety issues, because of the high added value at EU level and with a view to social progress under Article 3 TEU;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Supports the Commission’s intention of indicating more precisely how it arrives at its proposals, for example in the form of legislative texts or Commission communications;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the SME test; calls on the Commission to use lighadapterd regimes for micro-enterprises and SMEs and to consider exemptionadapted regimes for micro- enterprises on a case-by-case basis, while not compromising onithout calling the level of health, safety and employment standards into question;
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for further measureex-post assessments to check that legislation is doing what it was intended to do and to identify areas where there are inclegislations istencies and ineffective measures; not having the intended effect;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is convincedNotes that impact assessments constitute an important tool for supporting decision-making in all EU institutions and play a significant role in better regulation; remains, however, conscious of the fact that such assessments are not a substitute for political assessments and decisions;
Amendment 115 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Urges the Commission to continue to improve the legislative cycle and to introduce sunset clauses to ensure that employment legislation is periodically reviewedwhere appropriate to propose review clauses;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes note of the conversion of the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into a ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’ and expects that the inclusion of independent experts will have an advantageous effect on the impact assessment process within the Commission; insists, however, that the Regulatory Scrutiny Board must have an advisory role only and must not issue binding opinions; insists that impact assessments should be based on estimating what the additional costs would be for the Member States if there were no solution at European level;
Amendment 126 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 145 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the committee responsible to systematically review Commission impact assessments and review IMPA’s analysis as early as possible in the legislative process, and to call for impact assessments on its own reportsUrges Parliament’s specialist committees to make more consistent use of in-house impact assessment instruments, particularly where substantial changes to the original Commission proposal are being envisaged.
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Points out that focusing on the interests of business - 'Think small first' - is a mistake which increases imbalances within society and, ultimately will harm business too; calls therefore on the Commission to take account of high employment and social standards;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is making ex-post analysis an integral part of better regulation; stresses that, in the interests of legal certainty for citizens and businesses, such analyses should be carried out within a sufficient time-frame, preferably several years after the deadline for transposition into national law; highlights the fact, however, that sunset clauses should no longer be employed when legislation is drafted, since they create legal uncertainty;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Acknowledges that, in most cases, it is the prerogative of the Member States to decide whether to adopt higher social and environmental standards at national level than those agreed upon at EU level, and welcomes any decision to do so; calls, however, on the competent national authorities to be aware of the possible consequence of the so-called practice of ‘gold plating’, by which unnecessary bureaucratic burdens are added to EU legislation, since this may lead to a misconception of the legislative activity of the EU, which in turn might foster EU scepticism; recommends, for the sake of transparency and user-friendliness, that any additional innovations introduced at national level be clearly identified as suchstates that any reference to 'gold plating' is therefore misleading and must not prevent Member States from taking other measures to protect workers, consumers and the environment;