Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 24 November 2014 - Strasbourg

19. Commission’s impact assessment guidelines (debate)

  Der Präsident. - Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zu den Leitlinien der Kommission zur Folgenabschätzung (2014/2967(RSP)).

  Frans Timmermans, Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, let me say how important impact assessment is for this Commission. We need to deliver on growth and jobs; we need to make sure that we do not burden our citizens and our enterprises with undue regulation; we need to make sure that we deliver what is necessary so that Europe can use the existing opportunities in the economy that we are not using today.

I believe that we as institutions – the three of us: Commission, Parliament and Council – have a responsibility when we create legislation to assess whether that legislation achieves the goals it needs to achieve and nothing more and nothing less. That is why I strongly believe in impact assessment at out outset, when the Commission is preparing its work. That is why I believe we need to make improvements both in the way we do our impact assessment as a Commission and by putting the Impact Assessment Board in a position to do its work. However, I also believe that we have a joint responsibility, with the European Parliament and the Council, to improve the impact assessment along the way because, at the end of the day, what has an impact is not the initial proposal but rather the outcome at the end of the legislative procedure, and all of us know that this is not necessarily the same thing.

So what we need to do – and I know that Parliament feels strongly about this and is working on it – is to try to improve the process and ensure that the three institutions do more in terms of impact assessment along the way, so that when we have the final say about a directive, for example, before it is translated into national legislation, we have a clear view of the impact of what we finally decide to do, and of how to ensure that what it does is precisely what it is intended to do and not more than that.

As I said at my hearing, I have a very special interest in helping small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe to use the opportunities they have. From various studies I know of, and also through the contacts I have had with impact assessment authorities in Member States, it is increasingly clear to me that removing some of the administrative burden or undue regulation from small and medium-sized enterprises can have a catalytic effect on employment and on fighting unemployment in the European Union. Just imagine, for argument’s sake, that we can lift the burden of administration from a baker or a butcher by 10%. I am convinced that even that 10% could make the difference between a baker or a butcher being able to hire an extra hand and that same baker or butcher having to close the business because there is no time to see to all the administration.

These things can yield huge results because, given the number of small enterprises in the European Union, helping them helps the growth of employment more than anything else. I want to remind you that 85% of jobs in the private sector in the European Union are in small and medium-sized enterprises. Helping those enterprises by lifting some of the administrative burden – by making sure when we legislate for them that the legislation achieves the goal we intend and nothing more than that – is a direct contribution to creating more employment in the European Union.

I am dead set on this goal. I am ready to come to you and be accountable for it, but I desperately need your support because when Parliament acts in terms of impact assessment it makes a huge contribution to attaining that goal. We cannot do this on our own as a Commission. We need Parliament, and I hope that the Commission and Parliament together can convince the Council to pick up this issue too, because up to now the Council, to put it mildly, has not been very active in following suit where Parliament and the Commission want to achieve results.

  Markus Pieper, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Vizepräsident! Der Mittelstand, kleine und mittlere Firmen sind uns wichtig, sie sind das Rückgrat der Wirtschaft, wir dürfen sie nicht mit Bürokratie überfrachten. In jeder politischen Sonntagsrede weisen wir darauf hin. Herr Timmermans, auch Ihre Rede war eine Sonntagsrede, wenn auch mit mehr Substanz und Blick nach vorn. Ich würde ganz gern – und dazu haben Sie das Europäische Parlament aufgefordert – wirklich mit der Arbeit beginnen, gleich heute, und möchte Ihnen ein paar Fragen stellen, speziell zu den internen Richtlinien der Kommission zur Folgenabschätzung.

Warum ist dort kein verbindlicher KMU-Test mehr vorgesehen? Warum ist die Stelle für Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung nicht mehr so präzise formuliert? Warum haben die Generaldirektoren viel mehr Ermessensspielraum bekommen, ob es eine Folgenabschätzung geben soll oder nicht? Das sind jetzt schon sehr konkrete Fragen. Wir möchten die Kommission aber auch wirklich auffordern, diesen KMU-Test wieder verbindlich zu machen und die Folgenabschätzung wirklich ernst zu nehmen.

Unterstützen Sie unsere Initiative, die Nachfolge der Stoiber-Gruppe zum Bürokratieabbau unabhängiger von der Kommission einzurichten! Wir haben diese Sachverständigengruppen in vielen Ländern Europas – in Schweden, in den Niederlanden, in Tschechien, in Großbritannien –, auch in Deutschland bewerten unabhängige Gremien die Zuständigkeit und die Bürokratiefolgen der nationalen Gesetzgebung. Warum nicht auch in Brüssel eine von der Kommission unabhängige Folgenabschätzung der Gesetzesvorschläge? Sie soll die Arbeit der Kommission dazu nicht ersetzen, schon gar nicht ihr Initiativrecht einschränken. Wir wollen auch keinen Moloch, der aufwändig in die Gesetzgebungsverfahren eingreift. Wir wollen ein schlankes Expertengremium für Beratung zur besseren Rechtsetzung und Subsidiarität. Wir müssen den Menschen und den Unternehmen mehr beweisen, dass die EU mit der Gesetzgebung nicht übers Ziel hinausschießt. Dabei stärkt Unabhängigkeit Glaubwürdigkeit.

  Victor Negrescu, în numele grupului S&D. – [...] unei politici publice este esențială pentru a ne asigura de eficiența și calitatea unei decizii. În acest sens, salut inițiativa Comisiei Europene și a Parlamentului European de a discuta în detaliu această problematică și de a căuta noi modalități de realizare a acestora. Cred că principalul obiectiv al unei evaluări de impact este să permită inițiatorului să înțeleagă în detaliu efectele deciziei. Este nevoie de indicatori cantitativi, dar și de indicatori calitativi.

Trebuie să înțelegem că politicile publice afectează cetățenii și că oamenii și diferiții actori sociali implicați trebuie să cunoască de ce vrem să implementăm o anumită politică și care vor fi rezultatele.

În contextul politic actual, contribuabilul european trebuie să fie informat în detaliu cu privire la raționamentul politicilor publice. El nu trebuie să mai fie luat prin surprindere de măsurile luate la nivel central sau la Bruxelles și trebuie ca noi, cei din instituțiile europene, să înțelegem că, dincolo de state, noi trebuie să răspundem în fața cetățenilor. Sper ca, prin măsurile propuse, să facem în așa fel încât lucrurile să nu mai pară că sunt decise în spatele unor uși închise. Trebuie ca măsurile adoptate să evalueze mai bine și mai în detaliu diversitatea spațiului european, precum și particularitățile sociale și economice. În acest sens, domnule comisar, sunt convins că dumneavoastră veți face o evaluare de impact pentru cetățeni.

  Νότης Μαριάς, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας ECR. – Κ. Πρόεδρε, η αξιολόγηση των επιπτώσεων της νομοθεσίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης είναι μία σημαντικότατη δραστηριότητα που πρέπει, καταρχάς, να γίνεται στο πολιτικό πεδίο, διότι η Επιτροπή οφείλει να εξετάζει κατά πόσο τηρείται η αρχή της επικουρικότητας. Πρόκειται για ένα πολύ σημαντικό πολιτικό θέμα που αφορά τις ίδιες τις αρμοδιότητες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, την προστασία της αρχής των δοτών εξουσιών και την προστασία της τήρησης του τεκμηρίου αρμοδιότητας υπέρ των κρατών μελών.

Αυτό είναι το πρώτο στοιχείο που πρέπει να εξετάζει η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή. Το δεύτερο είναι ο σεβασμός των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων. Πρόκειται για πάρα πολύ σημαντικά ζητήματα τα οποία ενέχουν πολλές προβληματικές και πολλές επιμέρους πτυχές. Το τρίτο ζήτημα αφορά τις επιπτώσεις στις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις οι οποίες πρέπει, πραγματικά, να λαμβάνονται πολύ σοβαρά υπόψη. Θα σας πω, για παράδειγμα, τι συμβαίνει στην Ελλάδα, όπου εφαρμόζεται το μνημόνιο και όπου δεν έγινε κανένας έλεγχος και καμία αξιολόγηση των οικονομικών και κοινωνικών επιπτώσεων, όπου έχουμε χιλιάδες ανέργους, όπου έχουμε χιλιάδες φτωχοποιημένους Έλληνες. Θέλω κ. Επίτροπε να σας πω τι συνέβη στις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, διότι η Επιτροπή είναι μέλος της τρόικας. Διακόσιες τριάντα χιλιάδες επιχειρήσεις έχουν κλείσει. Υπήρξε μείωση του τζίρου κατά 75%. Οι φορολογικές υποχρεώσεις δεν μπορούν να εκπληρωθούν. Το 46% των μικρομεσαίων επιχειρήσεων καθυστερεί τις πληρωμές. Εάν είχατε κάνει μια εκτίμηση των κοινωνικών και οικονομικών επιπτώσεων, ίσως να είχαμε διαφορετικά αποτελέσματα. Πρέπει επίσης να διαθέτουμε εκτίμηση των επιπτώσεων για την τεχνολογική ανάπτυξη διότι χωρίς τεχνολογία δεν μπορούμε να περάσουμε στο νέο παραγωγικό μοντέλο. Όλα αυτά πρέπει να γίνονται και σε επίπεδο Επιτροπής βεβαίως αλλά και σε επίπεδο Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου.

  Pavel Telička, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, over the past three years we expected more from ‘better regulation’. We wanted a reduced administrative burden, but we kept increasing it. We wanted simpler legislation, but it has become less simple. We are not consistent, and basically we are placing more of a burden on our businesses and our citizens than we should do, without reaching or aiming for better objectives.

For me, better regulation is a top priority. I have dealt with the subject in the past, both from an administrative perspective and in speaking to – and working a lot with – businesses. If you talk to them today, most of them will identify this as the number one or number two issue. I very much agree with the Commission Vice-President here: if we could reduce the administrative burden by 10-15%, we would, in fact, have GDP growth roughly 1% higher than we have today. So it is a significant issue with significant implications for growth and for employment.

Now this is not an issue just for the Commission. The Commission has made progress, but it can make more. The Council – I will be blunter than the Vice-President was – has done zero. Parliament has made progress, but we need more progress. I would go so far as to say that this is an issue for an interinstitutional agreement, perhaps to be looked at in the future.

I would like to see impact assessment as a key issue and as a key building block in better regulation. I would like to see independently-carried-out impact assessments, professionally done. I would like experts and professionals on board. I would like to see the highest possible degree of independence, and I would like the Vice-President to supervise all these activities. I would even like to see financial targets. Perhaps that is very ambitious, but we know that it has worked elsewhere in the world, notably in the USA, and in some Member States.

Having spoken to the Vice-President, my questions are similar to those asked by Mr Pieper, so I will not repeat them. I would just say, Mr Timmermans, that your ambitions are encouraging, and we will be there to work with you. We will definitely support you, but we really want to see a tangible result, which is something we have not seen in the past 10 years.

  Reinhard Bütikofer, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich werde versuchen, in eineinhalb Minuten drei einfache Gedanken zu formulieren. Erstens: Wir müssen aufpassen, dass die Agenda für eine bessere Regulierung nicht zum Vorwand wird für eine andere Agenda der Deregulierung. Wenn ich mir ansehe, was Businesseurope heute gerade zum Besten gegeben hat: Das hat mit besserer Regulierung nichts zu tun, das ist die Zerstörung von Zukunftschancen für unsere Wirtschaft durch Deregulierung. In dem Zusammenhang ist es auch wichtig, dass Folgenabschätzung ein inklusives Instrument bleibt, dass wir da die Agenda nicht verschieben. Wir müssen die Kosten berücksichtigen, aber wir müssen auch die Vorteile von Regulierung berücksichtigen. Wir müssen auch berücksichtigen, welche neuen Märkte entstehen können. Alles das muss im Zusammenhang geschehen.

Zweitens: Diese sogenannte Sachverständigengruppe, die die Stoiber-Kommission vorgeschlagen hat, ist etwas, wo wir nicht holpern, sondern sehr genau arbeiten sollten. Ich möchte darauf hinweisen, dass sich die Vertreter der Verbraucherinteressen, der Gesundheitsinteressen, der Umweltinteressen und der Gewerkschaften in der Stoiber-Gruppe von diesen Vorschlägen distanziert haben. Wir müssen sorgfältig diskutieren. Wir brauchen keinen bürokratischen Entbürokratisierungsmoloch, und wir dürfen die Stakeholder-Beteiligung nicht so verkürzen, dass nur noch einige gehört werden.

Und drittens und letztens: Es wäre gefährlich, die Mikrounternehmen vollständig von der Gesetzgebung auszunehmen, wie manche in diesem Haus das möchten. Selbst Eurochambres lehnt das ab. Wir sollten das auch tun.

  Dominique Martin (NI). - Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, on ne peut que saluer le travail et les précautions de la Commission avant toute proposition législative. Il semblerait, en effet, que l'on pèse minutieusement les avantages et les inconvénients des options politiques envisageables par un examen rigoureux de leur impact potentiel. Je ne doute pas du sérieux et de la probité de ces nombreuses analyses malgré la présence nombreuse et efficace des lobbyistes dans cette maison.

Je m'interroge cependant sur l'efficacité à terme de la méthode et son coût financier. N'est-ce pas au pied du mur que l'on reconnaît le maçon? Quels sont donc les résultats de tant de travail? Croissance nulle, désindustrialisation, mort programmée de notre agriculture et de notre pêcherie, chômage endémique, perte du pouvoir d'achat, échec du système scolaire et de la formation initiale et professionnelle, immigration incontrôlée, corruption à tous les étages et insécurité croissante, nivellement par le bas, perte des valeurs, j'en passe et des pires. Toutefois, il est vrai, et c'est clairement expliqué, que chaque analyse d'impact contribue à la décision mais ne la remplace pas. L'adoption d'une proposition reste toujours une décision politique préparée par le collège des commissaires, présentée par le Conseil et la Commission et votée par le Parlement.

Alors, Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, cherchez l'erreur.

  Michał Boni (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! W ożywieniu gospodarki europejskiej olbrzymią rolę mogą odegrać małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa. Europie potrzebny jest nowy duch przedsiębiorczości, włączający się m.in. w cyfrowe narzędzia – bo to niższe koszty i lepsze dotarcie do klientów. To przyniesie nowe miejsca pracy. Ale nie mogą być przeszkodą dla nowej fali przedsiębiorczości stare i kolejne obciążenia biurokratyczne. Nie wolno zatem wykluczać z systemu oceny skutków regulacji ich wpływu na małe firmy.

Dlatego niezbędna jest rewizja oraz przejrzystość konkretnych wytycznych oceny skutków regulacji, precyzyjne opisanie testu obciążeń działających na małe firmy, jak również lepsze zdefiniowanie funkcji, narzędzi oraz możliwych inicjatyw niezależnego Impact Assesment Board, włączonego w całość procedur. Co oznacza niezależność? Jakość zewnętrznych ekspertów wskazywanych także przez Parlament, ale działających w identycznych standardach i w kooperacji z Komisją. To trzeba zrobić wspólnie: Komisja, państwa członkowskie i Parlament. Parlament jest ważny, bo może wspierać kompleksowe rozwiązania, mieć również swoich ekspertów w Better Regulation Advisory Board. Z drugiej strony, może sprzyjać likwidacji obciążeń wobec małych firm w poszczególnych krajach. Ale żeby to mógł zrobić, potrzebna jest nasza rezolucja i jej wdrożenie – z konkretnymi propozycjami w stronę nie tylko poprawy warunków dla małych firm, ale i wdrażania mniejszych – i wtedy lepszych regulacji dla całej gospodarki.

  Anthea McIntyre (ECR). - Mr President, I really welcome Mr Timmermans’ remarks this evening. I think that he understands the importance and I believe that he means what he says.

Impact assessments form part of better law-making – better regulation – and reducing the cost of regulation for businesses is absolutely crucial for growth and jobs. We need a regulatory framework that fosters innovation, skilled jobs and access to world markets. It is important that we recognise that the needs of all businesses are not the same. There is no one-size-fits-all, and each type needs a tailored solution that will help them.

I think we, as MEPs, must make full use of the Impact Assessment Unit we have in Parliament, and we need to go further. I would like to ask the Commission specifically for impact assessments to be published when a proposal goes out for consultation, a concrete burden-reduction target and specific exemptions for microenterprises.

PRÉSIDENCE DE MME Sylvie GUILLAUME
Vice-présidente

  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE). - Herr talman! Herr kommissionär Timmermans! Det är med glädje som jag har konstaterat att ert fokus är att stärka kvaliteten på EU:s lagstiftning. Vi delar den passionen.

Våra medborgare och våra företag har rätt att förvänta sig lagar som är effektiva och verkningsfulla. Det borde också vara av högsta prioritet för alla oss i denna kammare, oaktad vilket politiskt parti vi tillhör. Kommissionens konsekvensanalyser skulle kunna spela en mycket större roll.

Jag är ordförande i utskottet för framställningar i parlamentet. I detta utskott kan vi bidra med lärdomar, för vi ser hur lagstiftningen fungerar och hur den inte fungerar och vi kan definiera de områden där medborgarna har rätt att förvänta sig mer.

Vi tar emot tusentals framställningar som skulle kunna hjälpa till konkret i detta arbete med att utvärdera och ta fram policyinstrument och hjälpa till med konsekvensanalysarbetet också. Hoppas att ni hanterar detta med hög prioritet och seriositet. Jag kan lova er trogna allierade i detta parlament, i alla fall särskilt i mitt utskott.

  Barbara Kappel (NI). - Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar Timmermans, Herr Vizepräsident! Sie haben heute in Ihren Ausführungen darauf hingewiesen, wie wichtig gute Folgenabschätzungen für Wachstum und Beschäftigung in Europa sind, und Sie haben zusätzlich darauf hingewiesen, dass kleine und mittlere Betriebe die treibenden Kräfte dieses Wachstums und der Beschäftigung in Europa sind. Da kann ich Ihnen voll zustimmen: Europa ist durch kleine und mittlere Betriebe geprägt. Es gibt über 22 000 kleine und mittlere Betriebe, das sind genau 99,8 % der Unternehmen Europas, und über 90 Millionen Beschäftigte arbeiten in diesen Unternehmen. D.h. mehr als zwei Drittel aller Beschäftigten im privaten Sektor sind in kleinen und mittleren Betrieben tätig. Aus diesem Grund wird es notwendig sein, dass die Gesetzgebung und die Folgenabschätzung sich verstärkt auf KMU konzentriert. Ich würde den Vorschlag von Herrn Pieper unterstützen, die verbindlichen KMU-Tests wieder in die Folgenabschätzung aufzunehmen, wie generell bei allen Gesetzesvorschlägen das Prinzip von think small first anzuwenden ist, mit dem Ziel, ein unternehmensfreundliches Regulierungsumfeld zu schaffen.

  Anne Sander (PPE). - Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, les trois quarts des Européens estiment que l'Europe génère trop de bureaucratie. Cette surabondance de normes fragilise grandement la crédibilité de l'Europe et de ses institutions. Les petites et moyennes entreprises, qui représentent 99 % des entreprises européennes, en sont les premières victimes, et les études montrent bien que le coût administratif d'une nouvelle législation est dix fois plus élevé pour les PME que pour les grands groupes.

La Commission européenne a mis en place des procédures extrêmement détaillées pour s'assurer que la législation européenne soit plus adaptée avec notamment un test PME. Malheureusement, ce test PME n'est pas obligatoire et n'est appliqué que pour la moitié des nouveaux textes proposés. Et pire, le projet des nouvelles lignes directrices de la Commission sur les analyses d'impact n'en parle pas.

Alors qu'une consultation sur la réforme du Small Business Act est en cours et que, dans tous les pays, les associations d'entreprises, les chambres consulaires se mobilisent pour y répondre et se faire entendre, la Commission ne doit pas revoir ses ambitions à la baisse. Le principe de penser aux petits d'abord doit être la règle, et non l'exception, si l'on veut vraiment que l'Europe soit utile et aide les PME.

  Kaja Kallas (ALDE). - Madam President, small businesses are the key driver of European economic growth, as we know, but we need to make life easier for them to flourish. Therefore the impact assessments are a crucial tool to ensure that the laws are fit for purpose, that they work for small companies as well as they do for big companies. However, according to the Commission expert group, currently the cost for SMEs to comply with the regulation can be ten times more than for larger companies, and this should not be the case. The Commission needs to put itself in the shoes of a small business which often has neither the time nor the resources to take part in heavy and too-frequent consultations. I would therefore very much like to know what actions are foreseen to better reach out to small businesses to assess the impact of a proposal.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Franc Bogovič (PPE), Vprašanje, postavljeno z dvigom modrega kartončka. – Moje vprašanje gre v smeri, da je potrebno precizirat, kje so tiste možnosti, kjer so lahko ti postopki enostavnejši.

Po mojem globokem prepričanju so predvsem področje javnih naročil eno izmed tistih področij, kjer imajo mala podjetja največ težav in to je eno od tistih področij, kjer je sicer v Evropi veliko zmede. Razlike med državami. In prav je, da se to poenostavi. Ali se poslanka s tem strinja?

  Kaja Kallas (ALDE), blue-card answer. – Madam President, I am sorry but I did not hear the interpretation – it was in some other language.

  La Présidente. - Monsieur Bogovič faisait plus un commentaire. Donc, si vous voulez trente secondes de commentaires...

  Francesc Gambús (PPE). - Señora Presidenta, señor Timmermans, en primer lugar quisiera poner en relieve la especial importancia para las pymes de una adecuada evaluación del impacto de las normativas europeas por parte de la Comisión.

En Cataluña, hará ya tres años, el Gobierno catalán aprobó cinco leyes para reducir el red tape de los emprendedores y de las pequeñas y medianas empresas, puesto que son ellas las que a menudo enfrentan mayores dificultades para adaptarse a nuevos requisitos legales y administrativos. Y no debemos olvidar que son ellas las que ocupan al 70 % de los trabajadores en la Unión Europea.

En este sentido, pues, es imprescindible tener siempre presente el principio de pensar primero a pequeña escala, que dejamos plasmado en la small business act. No debemos olvidar que las pymes son el verdadero motor de la economía europea, como decía, y llegan a representar, por ejemplo, en España, el 99,8 % del total de empresas. Ellas son fuente de empleo y de creación de riqueza, por lo que facilitar su actividad debe ser una de las premisas que guíen nuestra acción política. Por ello, el compromiso de la Comisión de revisar periódicamente las normas de evaluación de impacto, con el fin de mejorarlas, es un paso en la buena dirección, pero quizá no suficiente.

En el contexto actual debemos ser mucho más ambiciosos. Debemos conseguir unas directrices más efectivas y que realmente ayuden a mejorar la elaboración, la eficacia y la sencillez de la normativa europea, en aras de una mayor productividad, del crecimiento económico y de la creación de puestos de trabajo en la Unión.

  Ivan Štefanec (PPE). - Rozhodnutia na európskej úrovni ovplyvňujú viac než 500 miliónov našich obyvateľov, preto naozaj je kľúčové, aby sme poznali dosahy a dôsledky týchto rozhodnutí. Kvalita celého Impact Assessment procesu má preto význam pre celý vývoj celej našej Únie.

Chcem zdôrazniť 3 nasledovné body. Po prvé, za najdôležitejšiu prioritu považujem tvorbu pracovných miest, preto každý návrh a každé rozhodnutie musí byť hodnotené podľa tejto priority a samozrejme s tým súvisiaci dosah na malé podnikanie, pretože vieme, že najväčší zamestnávatelia sú práve malí podnikatelia. Po druhé, Európska komisia si stanovila 10 prioritných oblastí a pri rozhodovaní by sme mali poznať dosahy jednotlivých právnych aktov práve na tieto oblasti a je dôležité, aby tieto kritéria nešli proti sebe a boli kontraproduktívne, ale aby naopak navzájom súviseli a nadväzovali na seba. No a v neposlednom rade, po tretie, chcem zdôrazniť nezastupiteľnú úlohu Európskeho parlamentu ako jedinej volenej inštitúcie na európskej úrovni a osobne sa teším na spoluprácu s Európskou komisiou práve pri Impact Assessment procese.

  Ева Паунова (PPE). - Уважаеми г-н Комисар, в тази зала често дебатираме за това как да подобрим условията за правене на бизнес в Европа и да помогнем на предприемчивите и иновативни компании да създават работни места и икономически растеж.

Достъпът до финансиране със сигурност е един от основните проблеми пред малките и средни предприятия. Наред с него трябва да поставим високо на дневния ред на европейските институции въпроса за облекчаването на административната тежест.

Тези въпроси вече са и приоритет за новата Комисия, в която точно Вие ще бъдете и ще работите за по-добра регулация в Европейския съюз. Поздравления за Вашата силна реч, която застава зад развитието на малките и средни предприятия по-рано днес в пленарна зала.

Принципът да мислим първо за малките трябва да продължи да се прилага чрез системно провеждане на така наречения „тест за малки и средни предприятия“ при извършването на оценка на въздействието на бъдещи законодателни инициативи. Имайки предвид средата на силна пазарна конкуренция, при която повечето от тях оперират, дори и малкото облекчение на административна тежест може да се окаже решаващо за развитието и разширяването на тяхната дейност.

За мен е неразбираемо и неприемливо, че ревизираните проектонасоки на Комисията не включват никакви разпоредби относно теста за малки и средни предприятия. Той трябва да бъде интегриран като задължителен елемент в процеса на оценка на въздействието и да се обърне повече внимание на подходящото му прилагане.

  La Présidente. - Je vous remercie d'avoir respecté votre temps de parole. Il y a un carton bleu de Mme Grapini. L'acceptez-vous?

  Eva Paunova (PPE). - No, I do not accept it.

  Jérôme Lavrilleux (PPE). - Madame la Présidente, je vais également essayer de respecter mon temps de parole pour vous dire qu'à l'écoute des informations que vient de nous apporter la Commission européenne au sujet de l'analyse d'impact, il me semble important de rappeler l'intérêt initial de cet exercice. Effectivement, l'analyse d'impact doit demeurer un outil au service du travail législatif et réglementaire européen. Celui-ci est indispensable pour éclairer de manière objective et précise les décisions prises par nos institutions. Leurs décisions ne sont jamais dépourvues de contrainte pour l'ensemble des États membres et, donc, de conséquences dans la vie quotidienne des citoyens européens.

Cependant, nous devons rester très vigilants. Ces études ne doivent pas être une source de réglementation encore plus excessive et d'une administration dont le poids nuirait à la liberté d'entreprendre et d'agir. À ce sujet, je souhaite donc sensibiliser la Commission européenne concernant le manque de souplesse, pour ne pas dire la rigidité aveugle de certaines analyses.

Permettez-moi de terminer sur un conseil en forme de boutade: évitons d'avoir un jour à faire des études d'impact sur l'impact des études d'impact.

Interventions à la demande

  Dubravka Šuica (PPE). - Gospodine predsjedniče, čuli smo da 85 % poduzeća pripada malom i srednjem poduzetništvu, da je to vrlo važno te je to okosnica gospodarskog programa. Također, g. Timmermans, vaše su ambicije zaista ohrabrujuće i u potpunosti ste, kao što ste rekli, posvećeni ovom cilju i trebate našu potporu - ja vjerujem da ćete je imati.

Međutim, imam jedno pitanje, možda mi možete odgovoriti: kreiranje ovog nezavisnog tijela koje bi jamčilo kredibilitet EU zakonodavstva, a već smo kreirali vas i vaš portfelj koji zapravo govori o tome - znači li to, da se dupliramo baš unutar tijela? Je li potrebno da netko mora kontrolirati Europsku komisiju?

Ako radite pravedno ocjenu učinka, ako uklonimo sve administrativne terete, ako nam zakoni budu jednostavni i ako su propulzivni i ako ih jednostavno možemo implementirati, čemu ovo nezavisno tijelo? Voljela bih kad biste to u završnoj riječi objasnili.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, le valutazioni di impatto sono condotte per prevedere la probabile conseguenza della legislazione UE sui cittadini e l'intera economia. Tuttavia esse sono spesso controverse ed opache.

Credo che una grande sfida che la nuova Commissione europea deve intraprendere sia quella di scorporare i suoi meccanismi di impact assessment da imperativi politici che troppo spesso guidano l'elaborazione delle sue proposte e basarsi invece sulle mere evidenze scientifiche. Ci sono innumerevoli esempi in cui i responsabili politici europei hanno bisticciato sulle evidenze scientifiche anche per quanto riguarda tematiche estremamente tecniche.

Credo sia dunque necessario lo sviluppo di un nuovo sistema di raccolta di prove all'interno della Commissione stessa che scolleghi completamente la raccolta di prove dall'imperativo politico. Creare un reparto speciale presso la Commissione con il ruolo di valutare le proposte politiche in base alla pura e semplice evidenza scientifica sarebbe importante per garantire che le valutazioni della Commissione siano efficienti, indipendenti e trasparenti.

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). - Vážený pane komisaři, já bych rovněž poukázal na to, že hodnocení dopadu regulace je oblastí, která mě jako právníka velmi zajímá, a myslím si, že po kvalitní evropské legislativě samozřejmě oprávněně volají miliony evropských občanů. Byl jsem překvapen, že pokud Komise navrhuje určitou změnu ve stávající platné legislativě, návrh není doprovázen překladem toho textu, který se mění, není zde uvedeno právě to srovnání platného a nově navrženého textu. To by se podle mého názoru mělo změnit i pro přehlednost právního řádu.

Dále bych se přimlouval i za specifické vyhodnocení dopadu naplňování zásady subsidiarity, zvláště po schválení Lisabonské smlouvy a s ohledem na činnost a stanoviska národních parlamentů.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). - Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o senhor podia ter vindo aqui dizer-nos como pretende tornar mais credíveis, mais rigorosas, mais fundamentadas as avaliações de impacto da Comissão Europeia – avaliações que, na maior parte das vezes, não são mais do que uma mera formalidade que jamais põe em causa os interesses dos lobbies que determinam as propostas legislativas da Comissão Europeia.

Em vez disso, optou por descredibilizar ainda mais este instrumento, em nome de um suposto facilitar de vida às pequenas e médias empresas. Quer facilitar a vida às PME? Pois acabe com as políticas de empobrecimento que esmagam o mercado interno do qual as PME, maioritariamente, dependem, como aconteceu em Portugal com a intervenção da troica. Acabe com as políticas de favorecimento dos grandes grupos económicos. Reconheça que, ao contrário do que proclamavam, as liberalizações e privatizações de setores estratégicos da economia sujeitaram as PME à predação dos monopólios e oligopólios, da energia, telecomunicações, banca, seguros e outros...

(A Presidente retira a palavra ao orador)

(Fin des interventions à la demande)

  Frans Timmermans, premier Vice-président de la Commission. - Madame la Présidente, tout d'abord, je voudrais exprimer ma reconnaissance envers les interprètes parce que les orateurs parlent tellement vite que je suis vraiment impressionné par leur travail.

Secondly, let me take away any misunderstanding. The impact assessment on SMEs was, is and will remain part of the Commission’s impact assessment. The only thing I want to do is to improve that. I do not think it is good enough as it is.

To explain the way it works: the services of the Commission who prepare legislation are themselves responsible for impact assessment. This impact assessment is then reviewed by the Impact Assessment Board, and until now approximately 40% of what was presented to the Board was sent back because it was not good enough and had to be reviewed.

So I am fully conscious of the fact that the Commission services should do a better job at incorporating impact assessment when they draft legislation. What we are doing now is revising the guidelines so that we do a better job. Your contribution tonight is extremely valuable for me to make sure that I can put that into the debate to create better guidelines.

The assumption that impact assessment would not be done for SMEs is not corroborated by the facts. Approximately 93% of the proposals have an entire or partial impact assessment for SMEs. I also believe that we could improve the Impact Assessment Board by making sure that we expand the membership of that Board with people who have experience in this field, who are clearly independent and who are willing to be very clear and brutal if they believe that the Commission is not doing a good job.

My intention is to look very carefully at the composition of the Impact Assessment Board. Some of you have suggested that this Impact Assessment Board should be removed from the Commission. I am not of that opinion. I believe it should remain within the Commission, because what we do is assess drafts we make in the Commission before these drafts go to Parliament and the Council. So if you want impact assessment across the board for EU legislation, perhaps we could then have a talk with Parliament on how Parliament organises this and learn from each other and then also look at what the Council could still be doing.

Impact assessment means looking at the impact on society in a broad sense. It is not just about whether it is legally well-drafted legislation. It also looks at the economic impact of this legislation. It looks at the social impact of this legislation. It looks at the environmental impact of this legislation. This is all of extreme importance for better regulation.

Mr Telička suggested that perhaps we should also have financial targets. Well, let me say – and this is for better regulation, not for impact assessment, and I think it was also Mr Bütikofer who referred to that – that better regulation does not mean deregulation or less regulation. Better regulation can mean replacing 28 national regulations by one clear EU regulation, but it can also mean that the EU refrains from making regulations where perhaps the differences between the Member States are so big that if you make an EU regulation, it becomes so complicated that it is too much of a burden, especially on small and medium-sized enterprises.

I want to take a completely rational approach to the issue. For me this is not an ideological issue, a party political issue; for me this is a rational issue. How do we attain the goals of sustainable growth in Europe without an undue burden on citizens and enterprises? That is the main goal of my operation in the next five years.

I also believe that we need to review existing legislation. We have not been very good at that as a European Union in the last ten years. I think Mr Telička rightly pointed to that problem, and I really undertake to have a dialogue with this Parliament on how we can also remove outdated legislation or legislation that no longer attains the goals it was intended for.

I agree with those of you who say ʽthink small firstʼ. Indeed, not just because there are so many SMEs in the EU, but also because helping SMEs is actually easier across the board than helping the big guys, because if you help SMEs remove just a part of the burden they have, you could create tremendous results in a very short period of time.

But the SMEs have to be aware of this, and until now my impression is that whatever we have done at the European level, SMEs today do not have the feeling that we are taking the burden away from them. They have the feeling, as some of you rightly pointed out, that the only thing Europe does is add more burden to them, and we should be very aware of that feeling in European society, and we should be able to do something concretely about this jointly as the Commission/European Parliament.

To sum up, Madam President: yes, SMEs will remain as part of impact assessment. Yes, we need to do better in impact assessment than we have done in the last couple of years. Yes, this is part of the better regulation exercise that will be complicated but necessary for growth in the European Union; and yes, the Commission is strongly committed to making sure that all stakeholders, and especially this Parliament, have a full say in how we develop this, and I hope that this can be reflected in the new guidelines the Commissions will be developing shortly.

  La Présidente. - Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu jeudi, le 27 novembre 2014.