The IA underpins the revision of the Package Travel Directive with a qualitative and quantitative analysis, which relies on a wealth of data sources. It identifies the problems and their drivers, and presents alternative policy options to address them. However, a further illustration of the scale of the problems and a clearer indication of the limitation thresholds of prepayments in all policy options would have been useful. As required in the Better Regulation Guidelines (BRG), the IA assesses the economic, social and environmental impacts of the policy options, and compares the options against the BRG criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. It also offers sufficient justification for the choice of the preferred option. As the large majority of package organisers (99 %) are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), an SME test was duly performed. Furthermore, the methodology used – including a price sensitivity analysis and multi-criteria methods – is explained in detail. The IA openly admits limitations in quantifying impacts due to the unavailability of quantitative data. The external study supporting the IA does not appear to be easily accessible, which reduces transparency. Overall, the legislative proposal appears to follow the preferred option of the IA.
Authors
- Pages
- 8
- Published in
- Belgium
Table of Contents
- Background 1
- Problem definition 1
- Subsidiarity / proportionality 3
- Objectives of the initiative 4
- Range of options considered 4
- Assessment of impacts 5
- SMEs / Competitiveness 6
- Simplification and other regulatory implications 6
- Monitoring and evaluation 7
- Stakeholder consultation 7
- Supporting data and analytical methods used 7
- Follow-up to the opinion of the Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board 7
- Coherence between the Commission's legislative proposal and IA 8
