8. Expresses serious concern at the fact that the role of the IAB in the impact assessment process is not more clearly defined in the draft revised guidelines; strongly insists that the Commission reconsider this omission and set out procedures relating to the IAB more clearly in a new set of draft revised guidelines when responding to Parliament and that any initiative which requires an IA should be subject to a positive opinion from the IAB; considers that the College of Commissioners should not examine any legislative or non-legislative initiative which would not have an IA positively cleared by the IAB;

8. Notes that the scope of an IA may not correspond to the proposals adopted where these are altered once submitted for approval by the College of Commissioners; requests that the draft revised guidelines state that the IA should be updated to ensure continuity between matters considered in it and any proposal finally adopted by the Commission;

9. Acknowledges that the College will review its conflicts of interests arrangements currently in place with the aim of developing a specific conflict of interest policy in 2014 on the basis of the Commission's Guidelines on the Prevention and Management of Conflicts of Interests in EU Decentralised Agencies; notes that members of the Governing Board and working groups or other categories of stakeholders directly collaborating with the College but not employed by the College will be considered within the scope of this exercise; call ...[+++]s on the College to inform the discharge authority on the review results once available;

Within this framework, you, Commissioner, along with the members of the College, have decided to renew the Employment Guidelines and this Parliament intends to acknowledge that decision.

In order to avoid inconsistencies and regulatory arbitrage, which could result from differences in the approaches and rules applied by the various colleges and the application of discretion by Member States, guidelines on the procedures and rules governing colleges should be developed by the Committee of European Banking Supervisors.

This committee should also explore the possibility of strengthening the national application of guidelines, recommendations and standards; they should introduce in their charters the possibility of applying qualified majority voting coupled with a comply or explain procedure; they should study the possibilities of introducing a common set of operational guidelines for the operation of colleges of supervisors and monitor the coherence of the practices of the different colleges of supervisors.