—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0095),

—

having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 285(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0091/2007),

—

having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A6-0285/2007),

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it by another text;

3.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.

—

having regard to the initiative by the Republic of Finland (16336/2006) (1),

—

having regard to Article 10(1) of the Convention, based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention (2)), signed in Brussels on 26 July 1995,

—

having regard to Articles 30(1)(b), 30(2) and 34(2)(c) of the EU Treaty,

—

having regard to Article 39(1) of the EU Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0048/2007),

—

having regard to the Council Act of 3 November 1998 adopting rules applicable to Europol analysis files (3),

—

having regard to the Council Act of 27 November 2003 drawing up on the basis of Article 43(1) of the Europol Convention, a Protocol amending that Convention (4),

—

having regard to Rules 93 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0288/2007),

1.

Approves the initiative by the Republic of Finland as amended;

2.

Calls on the Council to amend the text accordingly;

3.

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4.

Calls on the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the initiative by the Republic of Finland substantially;

5.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission and the Government of the Republic of Finland.

—

having regard to Articles 2, 6 and 174 of the EC Treaty,

—

having regard to its resolutions of 7 September 2006 on forest fires and floods (1), 5 September 2002 on floods in Europe (2), 14 April 2005 on the drought in Portugal (3), 12 May 2005 on the drought in Spain (4) and 8 September 2005 on natural disasters (fires and floods) in Europe (5), and its resolutions of 18 May 2006 on natural disasters (forest fires, droughts and floods) — agricultural aspects (6), regional development aspects (7) and environmental aspects (8),

—

having regard to the two joint public hearings organised by its Committee on Regional Development, its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and its Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on a ‘European Strategy for Natural Disasters’ (20 March 2006), and on the ‘European civil protection force: Europe aid’ (5 October 2006),

—

having regard to the Council Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom of 23 October 2001 establishing a Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil protection assistance interventions (9), to the anticipated adoption of the recast Council Decision establishing a Community civil protection mechanism and to Parliament's position of 24 October 2006 thereon (10),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council establishing a European Union Solidarity Fund (COM(2005)0108), and to Parliament's position of 18 May 2006 thereon (11),

—

having regard to Michel Barnier's report of 9 May 2006, entitled ‘For a European civil protection force: Europe aid’,

—

having regard to its position of 25 April 2007 on the Council common position with a view to the adoption of a directive on the assessment and management of floods (12),

—

having regard to the Council Decision 2007/162/EC, Euratom of 5 March 2007 establishing a Civil Protection Financial Instrument (13),

—

having regard to the conclusions of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 12 and 13 June 2007 on enhancing the coordination capacity of the Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) within the Community civil protection mechanism,

—

having regard to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of 11 December 1997 and the Community's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on 4 March 2002,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of 17 November 2003 (the ‘Forest Focus’ regulation) (14),

—

having regard to point 12 of the Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council of 15 and 16 June 2006 concerning the Union's responsiveness to emergencies, crises and disasters,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the European Union (COM(2007)0414),

—

having regard to Rule 103(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

having regard to the devastating fires and the violent floods which have caused death and destruction throughout Europe, in particular in Greece and the United Kingdom, during the summer of 2007, affecting EU Member States, and also outermost regions, in particular Martinique and Guadeloupe, which were hit by Hurricane Dean, applicant countries and the EU's immediate neighbours; whereas the area burned in July alone was as large as the total area burned during the whole of last year; whereas, in the month of August, Greece experienced a severe national tragedy as a result of one of the most lethal fires to have occurred in the world since 1871,

B.

whereas the total area of vegetation and woodland, including Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) forming part of the Natura 2000 network and other areas of major ecological value, with ecological connectivity between the whole region, that was affected by the fires in Europe this summer is more than 700 000 hectares, and the most severely affected countries are Greece, Italy, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Spain (and in particular the Canary Islands and the province of Castillón), Ukraine, Turkey and Albania,

C.

whereas the recent devastating forest fires in Greece resulted in the loss of more than 60 human lives and injuries to many people, the burning of more than 250 000 hectares, including thousands of hectares of forest and brush land, the loss of animals, the destruction of many houses and properties and the obliteration of villages,

D.

whereas, at the same time, other parts of Europe experienced severe floods, in particular the United Kingdom, resulting in the loss of at least 10 lives and causing damage estimated at EUR 5 billion to homes, schools, infrastructure and agriculture and the failure of supplies of clean water to over 420 000 people, leading to the displacement of large numbers of people and significant losses for businesses, agriculture and the tourist industry; whereas Italy has experienced the critical situation of floods in the Centre-North and droughts and fires in the South while extreme droughts occurred in Eastern Europe, particularly in Romania,

E.

whereas the Community Civil Protection Mechanism was activated 12 times for the same kind of emergency in a two-month period, and seven of the emergencies were simultaneous; whereas Member State assistance was not sufficient to ensure a rapid and adequate civil protection response to all of the emergencies,

F.

whereas, with increasingly hot and dry summer seasons in Southern Europe, forest fires and other wild fires are a recurrent phenomenon, but still vary dramatically from year to year in intensity and in geographical location; whereas the trend of these disastrous events is also influenced by climate change and is linked to the increasing occurrence of heat waves and droughts, as was noted in the abovementioned Commission Communication; whereas investment in combating climate change is therefore an investment in preventing drought and forest fire disasters; whereas, in periods of drought, which are becoming increasingly long, it will always be more difficult to restore forests after a fire, and this brings an attendant risk of desertification,

G.

having regard to the damaging economic and social consequences of the natural disasters for regional economies, productive activity and tourism,

H.

whereas the high number of fires in southern Europe in 2007, as well as their extent, is the result of a number of factors, including climate change, an inadequate definition and inadequate care of forests and a combination of natural causes and human negligence, but also of criminal activities, together with the inadequate implementation of laws prohibiting illegal building on burnt land,

I.

whereas the European Union needs to acknowledge the specific nature of natural disasters occurring in the form of Mediterranean droughts and fires and to adapt its prevention, research, risk management, civil defence and solidarity tools accordingly,

1.

Expresses its condolences to and strong solidarity with the relatives of those who lost their lives and with residents in the affected areas;

2.

Pays tribute to the fire-fighters, other professionals and volunteers who have worked tirelessly and risked their lives to extinguish fires, rescue people and limit damage from this summer's natural disasters, as well as to the many individuals who fought to save their livelihoods and their surrounding environment;

3.

Calls on the Commission to mobilise the current EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) in the most flexible manner possible and without delay, avoiding time-consuming procedures and administrative obstacles; considers, in this respect, that the necessary resources need to be made available immediately for the purpose of relieving the suffering and satisfying the needs of victims and their immediate families by means of the EUSF, any other Community instrument (e.g. Structural Funds or the EARDF), or any other possible financial means based on the implementation conditions of the Community funds, such as the partnership principle and sustainable development;

4.

Urges the Commission to introduce extraordinary Community aid arrangements, especially of a financial nature, so as to support the rehabilitation of the regions which have suffered heavy damage, restore the productive potential in affected areas, seek to re-launch job creation and take appropriate measures to compensate the social costs inherent in the loss of jobs and other income sources;

5.

Emphasises the need to speed up the procedure to access EU funds for the recovery of agricultural land following floods and fires and for more financial aid to be made available for the development of flood defences; calls on the Commission and the Member States to review and share best practices in the light of the latest research into the increased risks of flooding and forest fires caused by the way in which land, habitats and drainage are managed; urges the Member States to facilitate natural drainage and water retention in the environment as far as possible while increasing the capacity of flood control and drainage infrastructure in order to limit the damage that might arise from extreme rainfall;

6.

Acknowledges the solidarity of the European Union, its Member States and other countries in assisting the affected regions during forest fire emergencies, with the supply of aircraft, fire-fighting equipment and expertise, as well as the commendable help provided to the relevant authorities and rescue teams; considers that the scale and impact of these phenomena frequently go beyond the regional and national level and capabilities and call for an effective European commitment as a matter of urgency;

7.

Recognises the contribution of the MIC in supporting and facilitating the mobilisation and coordination of civil protection assistance during emergencies; notes, however, that Member State resources to combat forest fires, especially by aerial means, are limited and that it is not always possible for Member States to offer support when the resources are needed on their national territory; notes, as a result, that some Member States received less assistance than others and had to rely on bilateral agreements with non-EU states for assistance; regrets, therefore, that in some cases the EU as a whole failed to display sufficient solidarity;

8.

Strongly urges the Council to reach a decision, without further delay, on the proposed EU Solidarity Fund regulation, bearing in mind that Parliament adopted its position in May 2006; considers the Council's delay in this respect unacceptable; believes that the new regulation, which — along with other measures — lowers the thresholds for the mobilisation of the EUSF, will make it possible to address damage in a more effective, flexible and timely manner; calls on the Portuguese Presidency-in-Office, as well as the EU Ministers for Finance, the Environment, Agriculture and Regional Development, to take swift and firm action immediately; suggests to this end that an extraordinary joint Council meeting of responsible EU Ministers be called, at which Parliament and the Commission would be present as observers;

9.

Calls for the creation of a European force that could immediately react in emergencies, as proposed in Commissioner Barnier's report, and regrets the lack of response and follow-up in this regard; also emphasises, in this context, the need to continue the development of a rapid reaction capability based on the civil protection mechanisms of the Member States, as was called for by the Brussels European Council of 16 and 17 June 2006; calls on the Commission to draw up a proposal to this end; emphasises the role of the Member States and their local authorities in effectively preventing and combating fires;

10.

Urges the Commission to request from the Member States information on the operational programmes that are in place to deal with natural disasters and to solicit their experiences in the application thereof and, furthermore, to examine the adequacy of the prevention, preparedness and response measures utilised, with a view to the exchange of experiences and the drawing of conclusions on immediate measures, the coordination of administrative and operational bodies and the availability of necessary human resources and material; invites the Commission to explore the potential for cooperation with the EU's neighbouring countries and other third countries in fighting disastrous fires, exchanging best practices and sharing capabilities during the hazardous summer months in order to be better prepared for the summer of 2008;

11.

Considers that the previous years' experience and other recent experience emphasises the need to strengthen the Community civil protection prevention preparedness and response capability in relation to forest and other wild fires, and strongly urges the Commission to take action to this end;

12.

Invites the Commission to examine the possibility of having prearranged access to a complementary capability to ensure a rapid response to major emergencies, which may be available from other sources, including the commercial market; suggests that the cost of the stand-by force could be covered using the Civil Protection Financial Instrument;

13.

Welcomes the recent Council Decision 2007/162/EC, Euratom of 5 March 2007 establishing a Civil Protection Financial Instrument and believes that the actions funded under this instrument should ensure the visible expression of European solidarity and provide further European added value to the effective management of natural disasters; is concerned, however, that the amount allocated to this new instrument will not be sufficient for its ambitious tasks to be carried out effectively;

14.

Emphasises the need for stronger measures aimed at the prevention of natural disasters and, in this connection, eagerly awaits the publication in 2008 of two Commission studies aimed at the creation of an integrated strategy for the prevention of natural disasters; suggests furthermore that the Commission look into potential uses of open coordination for the purpose of preventing natural disasters, through comprehensive care for the land in order to increase the retention capacity of bodies of water and comprehensive forest care to reduce as far as possible the fire load of forests and the spread and velocity of fires; points out that the recovered biomass could contribute to the economic feasibility of operations;

15.

Calls on the Commission to carry out more research geared to improving forest fire prevention and forest fire-fighting methods and materials and to review planning and land use; urges the Member States, therefore, to take strong action to improve and implement their forest protection legislative framework and to abstain from commercialisation, reclassification and privatisation activities, thus limiting intrusion and speculation; considers that all available EU know-how, including satellite systems, should be used to this end;

16.

Deplores the fact that so many of these forest fires appear to have been started by acts of arson, and is particularly concerned that criminal acts of arson are increasingly to blame for forest fires in Europe; calls on the Member States, therefore, to strengthen penal sanctions for criminal acts that damage the environment and, in particular, for those causing forest fires, and believes that prompt and effective investigation in order to establish liability, followed by proportionate punishment, would discourage negligent and deliberate behaviour;

17.

Voices its concern at the growing number of disasters caused by extreme climatic events which, according to experts, may be attributed largely to climate change attributable to global warming; calls, accordingly, on the Member States to take the necessary steps to comply with the Kyoto goals, and calls on the Commission to take action to ensure respect for the Kyoto commitments and ensure their follow-up; calls on the Commission and all relevant public authorities to take into account climate change and the increased likelihood of disasters such as flooding and forest fires when setting budgets and contingency reserves for the emergency services;

18.

Calls on the Commission to continue collaboration with national authorities in order to develop policies that minimise the environmental impact of fires; calls for a reforestation policy based on respect for bio-climatic and environmental characteristics; emphasises the need to collect and register data relating to the natural resources of each Member State, through the creation of ‘Green National Accounts’ in the form of a database open to all citizens;

19.

Stresses the need to take special care in cases of natural disasters of the specific needs of people with disabilities in all actions undertaken using the Civil Protection Mechanisms;

20.

Considers that Volunteer Civil Protection Action should be promoted and supported without delay, with basic training activities and equipment that might harness advanced technologies, since this is one of the major resources available to the Member States when dealing with states of emergency arising from natural disasters; calls on the European Union and its Member States to make society aware of the value of our forests and their resources and the benefits of their conservation, promoting the involvement of civil society through organised volunteering or by other methods;

21.

Believes that a precondition of the long-term protection and territorial care of forests is sustainable programming and implementation of regional and rural development plans that aim to reduce the depopulation of rural areas, create new diversified rural income, especially for the younger generation, and establish the necessary modernised infrastructure to attract sustainable tourism and services to rural areas;

22.

Stresses that natural disasters, and in particular forest fires, have this year placed in considerable danger monuments and archaeological sites that are of major importance to the European cultural heritage; draws attention, in this connection, to the threat to Ancient Olympia, birthplace of the Olympic Games and, in particular, its museum, as a World Heritage Site; requests that resources be made available immediately for the purposes of restoration should sites forming part of European cultural heritage be damaged by continuing forest fires;

23.

Urges the Member States to ensure that all burned forest areas remain forests and be covered by reforestation programmes, including compulsory conditions, and that no land use change be allowed, to implement adequate legislation on conservation and appropriate land use, including sustainable farm and forestry practices, water management and efficient risk management and to immediately plan extended reconstruction policies for tourism and the local economy where it is affected;

24.

Calls on the Commission to monitor the proper, efficient and effective use of all emergency funds made available to Member States to tackle the consequences of natural disasters and calls on the Member States to ensure the repayment of improperly used Community aid, for example in the case of the nonfulfilment of reforestation plans, and to ensure cadastral updating;

25.

Condemns the practice of legalisation of illegal construction on protected and generally nonauthorised areas, and urges that all attempts at reducing forest protection via changes to the Greek Constitution (Article 24) be stopped immediately;

26.

Suggests sending a Parliamentary delegation to the countries most affected by recent natural disasters in order to express Parliament's solidarity with the people, to monitor the level of destruction to lives, properties, social networks, the environment and the economy, and to draw useful conclusions with a view to improving prevention and responses in the future to similar extreme situations in the EU;

27.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, and the parliaments and governments of the Member States.

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 October 2000 on the Commission reports to the European Council entitled ‘Better lawmaking 1998 — A shared responsibility (1998)’ and ‘Better lawmaking 1999’ (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 29 November 2001 on the Commission White Paper on European governance (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 April 2003 on the Commission reports to the European Council entitled ‘Better lawmaking 2000’ and ‘Better lawmaking 2001’ (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 February 2004 on the Commission report entitled ‘Better lawmaking 2002’ (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2004 on the Commission communication on simplifying and improving the Community's regulatory activity (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 April 2004 on assessment of the impact of Community legislation and the consultation procedures (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 May 2006 on a strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 May 2006 on Better lawmaking 2004: application of the principle of subsidiarity — 12th annual report (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 May 2006 on the outcome of the screening of legislative proposals pending before the Legislator (9),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 14 November 2006 entitled ‘A strategic review of Better Regulation in the European Union’ (COM(2006)0689),

—

having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Regional Development (A6-0273/2007),

A.

whereas succeeding in attaining the objective of ‘Better Regulation’ constitutes one of the main priorities for the European Union, as maximising the benefits of modern, rational and effective legislation whilst minimising its costs would ensure the highest level of productivity, growth , acceptance and, ultimately, employment throughout Europe,

B.

whereas the Commission, in its abovementioned communication of 14 November 2006, analyses progress achieved in the area of better regulation and maps out the main challenges ahead, pointing out the progress to be made both at European level and at the level of the Member States and thus developing an overall approach aimed at making Community and national legislation easier to apply and hence less costly,

C.

whereas this approach, constituting for the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament a useful tool for achieving the aims of the Lisbon strategy, requires a close partnership in this area, first between the European institutions and then between the latter and the national authorities,

D.

whereas, in the abovementioned communication, the Commission proposes to reinforce the scrutiny of impact assessments through the creation of an independent Impact Assessment Board under the authority of the Commission's President, and commits itself to taking more preventive action, following up with Member States at an early stage so as to facilitate the correct transposition of key directives,

E.

whereas, in the Commission's view, the European Parliament and the Council should provide more systematic impact assessments of major amendments to its proposals and give higher priority to pending simplification proposals, to codification and to the repeal of obsolete legislation,

F.

whereas the Commission proposes that Member States should in turn develop and enforce consultation mechanisms and simplification programmes, where these are missing, and should foster a more systematic assessment of economic, social and environmental impacts, along with an improved application of Community law,

G.

whereas better regulation is not exclusively about cutting red tape, reducing the administrative burden, simplifying existing legislation or deregulation but also involves ensuring that the legislative process is engaged with by all relevant governmental and non-governmental actors at all levels and that a close partnership is established between the European institutions and the national, regional and local authorities in order to deliver high-quality regulation,

H.

whereas every level of governance must be committed to better regulation in order to achieve any reduction in the administrative burden,

I.

whereas local and regional authorities often face the task of implementing and enforcing EU law,

J.

whereas, finally, the Commission proposes that both the European Union and Member States should embark on an ambitious strategy for reducing administrative burdens originating in European and national legislation, and that the joint reduction target in this regard should be achieved by 2012,

1.

Strongly supports the process of Better Regulation with a view to strengthening the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, accountability and transparency of EU law; stresses, however, that such a process needs to be based on a number of preconditions:

2.

Supports the Commission's aim of improving the quality of legislation and reducing the administrative burden; believes that the measures outlined in the Commission communication demonstrate a clear and ongoing commitment to that aim, but considers that still greater efforts are required in a number of areas to ensure that the maximum economic benefit is derived from internal market legislation;

3.

Urges the Commission to make all necessary efforts to streamline and modernise the stock of existing Community legislation through an adequate simplification strategy which should properly involve the Member States and interested parties; nevertheless, reaffirms that, although the goal of better regulation is to be shared among all European institutions, the Commission plays a crucial role in preparing high-quality legislative proposals, which constitute the best starting-point for the whole simplification process;

4.

Urges the Commission to place greater emphasis on the implementation, enforcement and evaluation of Community legislation, as an essential part of the Better Regulation process;

5.

Agrees with the Commission that better lawmaking cannot be achieved without an overall picture of the economic, social, environmental, health and international impact of each legislative proposal; fully supports, therefore, the setting-up within the Commission of an Impact Assessment Board under the authority of the Commission's President in order to monitor the application of these principles in the drafting of impact assessments by the responsible staff of the Commission;

6.

Stresses, nevertheless, that, in order to guarantee a minimum level of independent scrutiny in the drafting of impact assessments, an independent panel of experts should be set up to monitor, by means of spot checks, the quality of opinions delivered by the Impact Assessment Board, and that representatives of interested parties should also be allowed to assist in conducting them;

7.

Considers it necessary that the Impact Assessment Board should guarantee the application of a common methodology for all impact assessments, so as to avoid contradictory approaches and to facilitate comparability;

8.

Insists that Parliament be informed periodically of the decisions adopted by the Impact Assessment Board under the supervision of the President of the Commission, with a view to ensuring transparent dialogue between the two institutions.

9.

Calls on the Commission to provide impact assessments presenting a sufficient number of scenarios and policy options (including ‘do-nothing’ options as necessary) as a basis for cost-effective, sustainable and socially acceptable solutions;

10.

Considers it a general rule that any impact assessment must take into due account all possible significant effects of a policy proposal on society, the environment and the economy, and furthermore that, whenever possible and consistent with the relevant area of legislation, impact assessments must also take into due account all possible significant effects on vulnerable or minority groups as well as gender mainstreaming aspects and other sensitive target groups, for example ethnic minorities, parents bringing up children, the aged and permanently ill and disabled people (‘social benchmarking’);

11.

Requests the Commission to consult all relevant stakeholders, and in particular national, regional and local authorities, when preparing an impact assessment so that the local or regional variations can be properly taken into account, and to notify the results of the impact assessment in good time to Parliament, to the Committee of Regions and to all relevant regional and local governmental bodies;

12.

Considers that, to this end, all relevant stakeholders must be consulted, at all stages, possibly by having greater recourse to the Commission's website for the purposes of public hearings, the outcome of which might otherwise be aleatory, and through new and more structured ways of consultation, as envisaged in the Commission's Communication entitled ‘Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue — General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission’ (COM(2002)0704); takes the view that, in this connection, the Commission must provide maximum transparency by publishing the reactions of interested parties;

13.

Stresses that Parliament and the Council should provide more systematic impact assessments of major amendments to Commission proposals;

14.

Urges the Commission to specify the stage reached by impact assessments which have not yet been published, making it clear whether those assessments are still pending or have been withdrawn, postponed or restarted on different grounds, etc., and to consult interested parties on those still pending;

15.

Insists that Member States provide an impact assessment for their initiatives in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, pursuant to Article 34(2) of the EU Treaty; considers that Member States should commit themselves to recognising a real obligation in this respect;

16.

Supports the Commission's exercise of periodical screening and withdrawal of pending proposals; maintains, however, that this exercise must be viewed in the light of the prerogatives of the various Community institutions in the legislative process, as defined in the Treaties, and in compliance with the principle of loyal cooperation among the institutions;

17.

Is in favour of promoting principles-based legislation and focusing on quality rather than quantity; sees the better regulation debate as an occasion to reflect on legislation as a process designed to achieve clearly defined policy goals by committing all stakeholders to all phases of the process, from preparation to enforcement, and involving them therein;

18.

Regards the experience of the Lamfalussy procedure in financial markets regulation, and the regulator- market participants dialogue in particular, as a valuable case for a dynamic legislative process;

19.

Is of the opinion that the Lamfalussy procedure is a useful mechanism; considers the convergence of supervisory practices to be crucial; welcomes the work of the Level 3 committees in this respect and supports their call for an adequate toolbox; believes that giving supervisors room for manoeuvre can remove much of the burden of technical detail in legislation and produce adequate rules for a dynamic market; stresses, however, that this can never take away the political responsibility as regards the final objectives; insists that legislators should carefully monitor the process and reiterates that Parliament's rights in the legislative procedure should be fully respected;

20.

Believes that the Commission should review the relevance of pending legislation on an ongoing basis and not only upon taking office, and that it should withdraw proposals which are no longer pertinent, paying particular attention to those which have been outstanding for some time;

21.

Underlines that simplification is also required in the Commission's interaction with citizens, e.g. in the areas of procurement, financial services, research programmes, State aid rules and grant applications;

22.

Supports in principle the quicker adoption of pending simplification proposals, but considers it necessary to assess on a case-by-case basis whether a proposal has broader implications, in which case more time will be required;

23.

Is conscious of the fact that the legislative work within the Union could be undertaken in a more systemic way; therefore calls on the Commission to reconsider its working methods and the way it is organised so as to be able to address various issues in a more horizontal manner, the main purpose being to ensure greater coherence, to build on possible synergies and to avoid inconsistencies;

24.

Considers that the Commission should take the views of Parliament into consideration when withdrawing pending proposals, in order to maintain the essential element of trust between the Commission and Parliament;

25.

Welcomes the Commission communication withdrawing 68 proposals that it considered inconsistent with the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy and the principles of better regulation, but regrets that the Commission has withdrawn the proposal for a directive on the Statute for a European mutual society despite the fact that it is one of the key elements of the Lisbon Strategy, and therefore calls on the Commission to adopt an initiative before the end of 2007 to enable a Statute for a European mutual society and a European association to be drafted;

26.

Accepts that the Council, like Parliament, must consider the impact of its major amendments upon the Commission's impact assessment; stresses the need for cost-benefit analyses that better reflect the complex regulatory cost structures when directives are implemented by way of national legislation and change the regulatory framework within which companies and individuals operate; strongly advocates transparency and independent scrutiny of the carrying-out of impact assessments under the full responsibility of the legislators in the context of their political priorities;

27.

Fully supports any efforts on the part of the Commission aimed at the general strengthening of the enforcement of Community law through more preventive action, coupled with a process of following matters up with Member States at an early stage so as to facilitate the correct transposition of key directives, and recommends that Parliament be duly associated with such initiatives;

28.

Considers that, when monitoring the application of Community law by Member States, the Commission should oblige, and not merely invite, Member States to produce correlation tables and transposition notes, especially with a view to checking each national process of transposition of directives; to that end, is of the opinion that the Commission should call on Member States to adopt a common reference methodology;

29.

Considers that the emphasis placed on the importance of impact assessments should not lead to a situation within the Commission whereby resources intended for monitoring the correct transposition of Community law and for processing cases of infringement are re-allocated to impact assessments; stresses the need to increase resources aimed at ensuring that the application of Community law is effectively monitored;

30.

Deplores Member States' practice of ‘gold plating’, and calls upon the Commission to investigate what further measures might be taken to prevent it, including the introduction of a right of direct action for citizens; calls for ‘follow-up impact assessments’ analysing how decisions are in fact implemented in Member States and at local level; supports the increased use, where appropriate, of regulations;

31.

Recalls the importance of the judicious use of ‘sunset clauses’ in ensuring that legislation remains pertinent;

32.

Insists that, when presenting a legislative proposal, the Commission must avoid unclear and redundant expressions and preferably use plain and comprehensible language, whilst retaining terminological precision and legal certainty; considers, in particular, that the practice of using incomprehensible acronyms and the over-abundance of needless recitals must be abandoned; encourages all levels of government to use, whenever possible, clear language that is easily understandable by citizens;

33.

Calls upon the Commission to ensure, while developing better regulation, that new regulations and their enforcement are consistent, justifiable, transparent and comprehensible for stakeholders and for beneficiaries;

34.

Calls on the Commission, in the case of regulations, to produce in advance guidance notes on implementation for the benefit of the Member States, regional and local authorities and specialised agencies;

35.

Strongly reaffirms that better regulation must always imply the full involvement of Parliament both in the inter-institutional debate and, as a co-legislator, in the adoption of legislation subject to such a process; also stresses that it is always open to Parliament to consider the appropriateness of the choice of legal instrument to be adopted (regulation, directive or decision) and/or to assess whether it may be preferable to use alternative regulatory methods;

36.

Encourages the Commission to investigate alternatives to legislation with a view to improving the functioning of the internal market, including self-regulation and the mutual recognition of national rules, while stressing that this should not impede democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament and by Member States' parliaments; underlines that Community regulation must be seen in the context of international competition and global markets;

37.

Considers that the new rules on comitology, which reinforce the scrutiny by Parliament and the Council of the implementing powers conferred on the Commission, constitute a further way of simplifying Community legislation, inasmuch as they allow wide-ranging regulatory powers to be transferred to the Commission as regards non-essential and technical details and thus permit Parliament and the Council to concentrate their legislative activity on more essential provisions;

38.

Welcomes the conclusions of the European Council of Spring 2007 on better regulation and, in particular, the decision to reduce administrative burdens arising from Community legislation by 25 % for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by 2012; considers that this target should result in more intelligent, more effective and more user-oriented legislation, reducing unnecessary burdens on SMEs without lowering the standards contained in the current legislation; supports, in particular, the decision of the Council to invite Member States to set national targets by 2008, and asks that the Commission and the Member States establish homogeneous monitoring mechanisms enabling this process to be effectively pursued in Member States at national, regional and local levels;

39.

Calls upon the Commission to present annually its achievements and its plans for the attainment of promised goals of reducing the administrative burden;

40.

Calls on the Commission to develop, in cooperation with the Council and the European Parliament, institutional reforms within the Community that will help to secure greater financial savings and will facilitate cooperation in ensuring better or more intelligent regulation;

41.

Calls on the Commission to take into account, in its further work on better regulation, the results of the study requested by Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the simplification process, ‘Simplifying EU Environmental Policy’ (10);

42.

Is concerned by the findings of various independent studies (11) that the Commission guidelines on impact assessments are not fully respected by Commission DGs, that the assessment and quantification of economic impacts have been emphasised at the expense of environmental, social and international impacts, that the costs of legislation are assessed far more than the benefits, and that short-term considerations overshadow long-term ones; welcomes the Commission's plans to set up an Impact Assessment Board and to establish external evaluation of the Commission's impact assessment system, both of which should contribute to ensuring that the persistent deficiencies listed above are finally overcome;

43.

Supports the conclusion resulting from the study entitled ‘Simplifying EU Environmental Policy’ that impact assessments can play an essential role in ensuring better regulation and that the quality of some assessments needs to be improved; urges the Commission to ensure:

recognises that impact assessments could also play an essential role in the case of amendments proposed by the European Parliament or the Council having potentially significant impacts;

44.

Calls on the Commission to further promote exchanges of information on best practices regarding simplification of EU environmental policy in the Member States, such as:

45.

Calls upon the Member States to develop and to implement consultation mechanisms with the regional and local authorities during the legislative process, to take into account their concerns during ministerial negotiations and to reinforce their role during the process of transposition and implementation of EU legislation;

46.

Calls upon the Commission to work closely with all authorities in the Member States that are responsible for the transposition of EU legislation, and at the same time advises the Commission to organise seminars at local level too on the subject of the transposition of EU legislation into domestic law, so as to ensure that, by simple, comprehensible means, relevant information reaches stakeholders directly;

47.

Calls upon the Member States to develop and to enforce necessary, efficient and clear procedures for better cooperation between the regional and central governments in order to facilitate the transposition process, and to recognise the increasing role of regions having legislative powers;

48.

Encourages authorities in the Member States to draw up formal transposition strategies, in order to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the regional and national governments for better and faster transposition;

49.

Encourages the Commission to publish, where possible, the transposition guidelines for directives at the same time as the directives themselves, in order to allow national and regional governments to take them into account before starting the transposition process and to permit correct and timely transposition in the Member States;

50.

Calls upon the Commission to speed up the completion of a comprehensive, freely accessible public database of national implementing laws, including regional variations where appropriate;

51.

Takes the view that better regulation should not lead to a reduction in environmental, social and quality standards;

52.

Calls upon the Member States to ensure that, when transposing EU legislation, they do not impose upon natural and legal persons obligations which go beyond what is required under the transposed legislation and which place an unnecessary administrative burden upon, in particular, SMEs, which are the driving force behind the sustainable development of Europe's regions;

53.

Requests the Commission to improve the provision of information about transposition and infringement proceedings, and to make this information public and easily accessible on the Commission's website.

54.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 October 2000 on the Commission reports to the European Council entitled ‘Better lawmaking 1998 — A shared responsibility (1998)’ and ‘Better lawmaking 1999’ (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 29 November 2001 on the Commission White Paper on European governance (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 April 2003 on the Commission reports to the European Council entitled ‘Better lawmaking 2000’ and ‘Better lawmaking 2001’ (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 February 2004 on the Commission report entitled ‘Better lawmaking 2002’ (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2004 on the Commission communication on simplifying and improving the Community's regulatory activity (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 April 2004 on assessment of the impact of Community legislation and the consultation procedures (6),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament entitled ‘Better Regulation for Growth and Jobs in the European Union’ (COM(2005)0097),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 May 2006 on a strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 May 2006 on Better lawmaking 2004: application of the principle of subsidiarity — 12th annual report (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 May 2006 on the outcome of the screening of legislative proposals pending before the Legislator (9),

—

having regard to the Report from the Commission — ‘Better lawmaking 2005’ pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (13th report) (COM(2006)0289),

—

having regard to the Commission working document — Measuring administrative costs and reducing administrative burdens in the European Union (COM(2006)0691),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the European Union (COM(2007)0023),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A strategic review of Better Regulation in the European Union (COM(2006)0689),

—

having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A6-0280/2007),

A.

whereas succeeding in attaining the objective of ‘Better lawmaking’ constitutes one of the main priorities for the EU, as maximising the benefits of modern, rational and effective legislation whilst minimising its costs would ensure the highest level of productivity, growth and, ultimately, employment throughout Europe,

B.

whereas the principle of subsidiarity plays a vital role in establishing the authority of Community legislation and in deciding whether laws should be adopted at EU level, thus proving to be a crucial element in monitoring the separation of powers between the EU and the Member States and a useful tool for enabling Member States to assume legislative competence,

C.

whereas full respect of the principle of proportionality is a clear necessity both for European and national legislation in order to reinforce legal certainty,

D.

whereas the Court of Justice is responsible for monitoring the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles,

E.

whereas European legislation, being often a result of difficult political compromise, may lack clarity and Member States may be unable or unwilling to implement it correctly,

F.

whereas the reputation and the effectiveness of European legislation are affected by unnecessary and disproportionate administrative burdens often imposed on citizens and businesses by EU rules,

G.

whereas a 25 % reduction in the unnecessary administrative burden could constitute a significant growth stimulus for European GDP and thus a valuable contribution to the attainment of the Lisbon objectives,

H.

whereas unnecessary administrative burdens resulting from European legislation undermine the effectiveness and credibility of European legislation,

I.

whereas European legislation should make it easier for citizens and undertakings to benefit as much as possible from the internal market and should not burden them with high costs which could be avoided,

J.

whereas the streamlining of the acquis communautaire through simplification and a reduction in unnecessary administrative burdens should not be at the expense of the legal certainty and protection provided by European legislation,

1.

Agrees that the regulatory environment in which businesses operate is a determinant of their competitiveness, of sustainable growth and of employment performance, and that ensuring that the regulatory environment is and remains transparent, clear, effective and generally of high quality should be an important objective of EU policy;

2.

Considers that poor regulatory quality in the Member States and at Community level weakens the rule of law and alienates citizens from their institutions;

3.

Fully supports all efforts by the Commission to promote the general strengthening of the effectiveness and enforcement of Community law through any relevant initiative;

4.

Welcomes the success of the web portal ‘Your Voice in Europe’ and invites the Commission to develop further (Or.: IT) effective ways of consulting interested parties about every aspect of a legislative proposal, including impact assessment, before launching the proposal;

5.

Stresses the importance of adequate and independent impact assessments, based on wide-ranging consultation of stakeholders, and calls on the Commission to provide a sufficient number of scenarios and policy options (including ‘do-nothing’ options if necessary) as a basis for cost-effective and sustainable solutions;

6.

Welcomes the Commission's commitment to enhance transparency and accountability in respect of its expert groups, as well as to establish an inventory of existing cases of EU self-regulation and co-regulation;

7.

Underlines the importance of Community institutions and Member States, through regional and local authorities as well as at central ministerial level, keeping a permanent watch on the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles;

8.

Welcomes the Commission action programme to measure the administrative cost for undertakings in Europe and to reduce unnecessary and disproportionate administrative burdens by 25 % by 2012;

9.

Notes that the strategy for a 25 % reduction refers to unnecessary administrative burdens for undertakings and cannot, therefore, be equated to a deregulation, nor lead to a change in the policy objectives and level of ambition contained in Community legislation; calls on the Commission to ensure that the reduction in unnecessary administrative burdens arising from regulations should not be at the expense of the original objectives of the regulations concerned;

10.

Supports the conclusion that this must be a joint objective which can be attained only on the basis of a common endeavour by the Member States and the European institutions;

11.

Emphasises, in particular, that an effective strategy for the reduction of unnecessary European administrative burdens must be implemented both by the Commission, as regards unnecessary administrative burdens arising from European regulations and directives, and by the Member States, as regards such burdens arising from national legislation; calls on the Commission to take the lead and not to make its actions to reduce the unnecessary administrative burden at EU level dependent on the actions undertaken by the Member States at national level to reduce such unnecessary burdens arising from national legislation;

12.

Welcomes the identification by the Commission of 13 priority areas where the administrative costs are to be measured and unnecessary administrative burdens reduced as a pragmatic and effective approach but calls on the Commission, in the longer term, to also measure the administrative costs and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens outside these priority areas; considers that this could be done, inter alia, during the evaluation provided for in the relevant European regulations;

13.

Is greatly concerned by the fact that the Commission Communication (COM(2007)0023) proposes (in Annex I) to limit the scope of the action programme to obligations of businesses; considers, however, that the strategy for development and employment requires the action programme to cover all administrative burdens;

14.

Emphasises the importance of involving stakeholders in the identification of legislative proposals which cause unnecessary administrative burdens and the definition of measures to reduce such burdens; calls on the Commission to establish within each of its Directorates-General a dialogue with European stakeholders, with regard both to the 13 priority areas and to the identification of new priority areas;

15.

Stresses that the 25 % reduction in unnecessary administrative burdens must realistically reflect the actual reduction in burdens; emphasises, therefore, the importance of an initial baseline measurement and of the definition of the target reduction of 25 % as net target, so that account is taken of additional unnecessary administrative burdens arising from new European regulations in the final assessment, in 2012, to establish whether the unnecessary administrative burdens in the EU have been reduced by a quarter.

16.

Supports the Commission proposal for the introduction of thresholds for all information requirements, limiting them for SMEs wherever possible;

17.

Emphasises that each Directorate-General in the Commission must be involved in the reduction of unnecessary administrative burdens; stresses that each Directorate-General must be made aware of the unnecessary administrative burdens it generates through an initial baseline measurement and that a target reduction must be established on the basis of that baseline measurement for each Directorate-General;

18.

Calls on the Commission to publish each year the measures adopted and the measures planned to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens in the EU, the increase in administrative burdens in the EU arising from new regulations and the envisaged net contribution of those measures, expressed as a percentage, to the attainment of the target reduction of 25 % by 2012;

19.

Welcomes the Commission's intention, pending completion of the assessment of unnecessary administrative burdens in 2008, to contribute significantly to the reduction in such burdens in the short term through so-called ‘fast-track actions’ for the most obvious unnecessary administrative burdens; calls on the Commission to identify, on the basis of the experiences of Member States which have already carried out baseline measurements, further areas in which simple reductions in unnecessary administrative burdens can be achieved and to propose target reductions;

20.

Supports the Commission's efforts to chart the unnecessary administrative burdens arising from new European legislation through the integration of the Standard Cost Method (SCM) in the impact assessment procedure; considers it essential that stakeholders help to gather the information required for the use of the SCM; emphasises that the quality of the impact assessment must be controlled by the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) by means of publicly accessible opinions;

21.

Emphasises that Parliament should not take into consideration any legislative proposals from the Commission that are not accompanied by an independently scrutinised impact assessment that includes an evaluation of the existence of any unnecessary administrative burden through the SCM;

22.

Is of the opinion that the added value of the IAB impact assessment procedures should be evaluated before the end of 2008; calls on the Commission to develop indicators to that end, building on the existing experience of international organisations and Member States;

23.

Proposes that appropriations recently released in the EU Budget for a pilot project minimising administrative burdens be used to set up an independent panel of experts to monitor the quality of opinions delivered by the IAB by means of spot checks, notably as regards the charting of unnecessary administrative burdens, and to supervise the implementation of the European action programme to reduce administrative burdens;

24.

Stresses the importance of a clear distinction between cases of obsolete, redundant or over-prescriptive information obligations and cases where, for reasons relating to the protection of public health, health, safety, quality of work and workers' rights, the environment or the Community's financial interests, information obligations remain necessary;

25.

Notes the need for the Council and Parliament to adopt simplified proposals more swiftly and, therefore, emphasises the conclusion of the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking of 16 December 2003 (10) to change the working methods of the Council and Parliament, for instance through the establishment of ad-hoc structures charged specifically with the simplification of legislation;

26.

Proposes that, in parallel to the action programme to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens, the Commission carry out a study in order to:

27.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to consider cases where different parties are often required to provide the same information, and to put an end to duplication of information;

28.

Calls on the Member States to extend their efforts to reduce the burden resulting from purely national legislation;

29.

Also calls on the Member States to replace the production of printed information with information produced electronically and on the Internet, using smart Internet portals where possible;

30.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement on better lawmaking, signed on 16 December 2003 (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 October 2000 on the Commission reports to the European Council entitled ‘Better lawmaking 1998 — A shared responsibility (1998)’ and ‘Better lawmaking 1999’ (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 29 November 2001 on the Commission White Paper on European governance (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 April 2003 on the Commission reports to the European Council entitled ‘Better lawmaking 2000’ and ‘Better lawmaking 2001’ (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 February 2004 on the Commission report entitled ‘Better lawmaking 2002’ (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2004 on the Commission communication on simplifying and improving the Community's regulatory activity (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 April 2004 on assessment of the impact of Community legislation and the consultation procedures (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 May 2006 on a strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 May 2006 on ‘Better lawmaking 2004: application of the principle of subsidiarity — 12th annual report’ (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 May 2006 on the outcome of the screening of legislative proposals pending before the Legislator (10),

—

having regard to the Commission working document of 14 November 2006 entitled ‘First progress report on the strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment’ (COM(2006)0690),

—

having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0271/2007),

A.

having regard to the current unstinting and systematic commitment by the Commission, the Council and Parliament to bring about, define and improve the application of legislative simplification tools,

B.

whereas simplifying the legislative environment to ensure the clarity, efficacy and quality of legislation is an essential prerequisite for attaining the objective of ‘better lawmaking’, which, in turn, is a priority for the Union with a view to securing high levels of growth and employment,

C.

whereas one of the main results of simplification is its progressive coverage of all EC regulatory areas,

D.

having regard to the obligations and aims laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on better lawmaking, especially those intended to simplify and reduce the volume of Community legislation and those relating to the impact of that legislation in the Member States,

E.

whereas the abovementioned Commission working document is a follow-up to, and implements, the Commission communication of 25 October 2005 entitled ‘Implementing the Community Lisbon programme: a strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment’ (COM(2005)0535),

F.

whereas the abovementioned working document sets out a new ‘simplification rolling programme’ covering the period 2006-2009, in which measures are announced to simplify form, based on 43 recasts, 12 codifications and 8 repeals, in addition to 46 other measures to simplify substance, generally defined as cases of ‘revision’,

G.

whereas in addition to the above simplification measures, some 500 new legislative initiatives (some 200 of which in 2007 alone) have been included in a separate rolling programme specifically dedicated to codifications,

H.

whereas the Commission points out that the codification programme remains indicative, since it depends on the availability in all languages of the acts to be codified and whereas, according to the Commission, codification should be postponed when new amendments of those acts are envisaged, with the result that, in the Commission's view, the order of acts in the rolling programme might change in the light of these two factors,

I.

whereas, in the abovementioned working document, the Commission proposes increasing the practice of including in its proposals an initial explanatory memorandum in order better to explain the simplification objectives pursued,

J.

whereas the success factors for achieving the simplification goals include a solid set of methodologies, which has improved thanks to consultation with all interested parties and to the development of sectorspecific analyses, close cooperation between the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council and an increasing use of self-regulation and co-regulation,

K.

whereas the simplification being promoted at European level should be accompanied by appropriate simplification at national level to ensure that the advantages of Community simplification are not undermined by national rules or technical barriers,

1.

Urges the Commission to place greater emphasis on implementation, enforcement and evaluation of Community legislation, as an essential part of the ‘better regulation’ process;

2.

Welcomes the fact that, for the first time, the simplification initiatives have been included in the Commission's legislative and work programme for 2007, in confirmation of the political priority to be given to the simplification strategy;

3.

Calls on the Commission systematically to include from now on the simplification initiatives in a specific part of the legislative and work programme, to indicate therein what priority it intends to give to each individual simplification initiative and, to that end, to set out its simplification proposals already in its annual policy strategy at the start of the annual legislative programming process; calls on the Commission, lastly, to avoid the proliferation of documents containing lists of simplification initiatives, in order to have as clear a reference framework as possible;

4.

Suggests that, just as they have done for the purpose of codifying the acquis communautaire  (11), Parliament, the Commission and the Council should conclude an interinstitutional agreement on an accelerated working method for simplification measures as a whole;

5.

Welcomes the efforts made by the Commission to step up the activity of codifying the Community acquis as a primary and fundamental way of simplifying the regulatory environment;

6.

Calls on the Commission to address, as soon as possible, the difficulties relating to translation and to prevent the submission of new legislative proposals from having a negative impact on the codification initiatives, thereby undermining the entire simplification process; stresses that the Commission should be consistent and thus refrain from setting out in its legislative and work programme plans for codification on the same topics as those in relation to which it intends to submit substantive legislative proposals;

7.

Proposes that the Commission once and for all adopt recasting as a standard legislative technique so that, for each initiative, the text can be available in its entirety, also where there are specific amendments, providing a clear indication of the new parts and those which are unchanged, thereby increasing the legibility and transparency of Community legislation;

8.

Calls on the Commission, furthermore, to bear in mind that where recasting is impossible, the codification of the legislative area concerned should be the standard legislative technique to be carried out within a six-month time-frame; takes the view that, in accordance with the abovementioned interinstitutional agreement, Parliament, together with the Council and the Commission and providing for the necessary involvement of those parties concerned, could set up special ad hoc structures with the precise aim of promoting simplification;

9.

Welcomes the commitment taken on by the Commission to develop a solid set of methodologies for the work of simplification; to that end, calls on the Commission to persist in consulting the interested parties, for instance by extending to other sectors the initiatives already announced in October 2005 concerning agriculture and fisheries and by strengthening the measures it intends to adopt in this regard in the field of company law and copyright; encourages the Commission to further develop sector-specific analyses and the measurement of the administrative burdens generated by existing Community legislation;

10.

Stresses the vital importance of cooperation between the Community institutions as a prerequisite for the success of any simplification strategy; highlights in this respect the strong signal of goodwill emitted by the European Parliament thanks to the amendments to its Rules of Procedure designed, respectively, to facilitate the adoption procedure for codifications and to introduce an ad hoc legislative procedure for recasts;

11.

Reiterates that the traditional legislative instruments should continue to be used as a general rule in order to attain the objectives laid down in the Treaty; considers that co-regulation and self-regulation could usefully supplement or replace legislative measures where those methods make improvements of equivalent or broader scope than legislation can provide; stresses that any use of alternative regulatory arrangements should be in compliance with the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making; points out that the Commission has to lay down the conditions and limits which the parties must observe when employing such methods, and that these should in any event be used under Commission supervision and without prejudice to Parliament's right to object to their use;

12.

Calls on the Commission to make every effort to ensure that the process being promoted at European level to simplify regulation and generally to improve its quality is not undermined at national level by internal rules or technical barriers; calls on the Commission to guide and monitor this process also at national level, for instance by acting as a centre for collecting and disseminating the best practices developed within the European Union and its Member States and, not least, responding to indications from stakeholders;

13.

Stresses that regular and thorough impact assessments play a key role in the simplification process and that such assessments should be considered by the Council and Parliament when amendments are made to a proposal during the legislative process;

14.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.