Activities of Sajjad KARIM related to 2014/2150(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT): State of Play and Outlook PDF (225 KB) DOC (161 KB)
Amendments (46)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15
Citation 15
– having regard to the final report of 24 July 2014 of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens, entitled ‘Cutting Red Tape in Europe – Legacy and Outlook’, and in particular the dissenting opinion in Annex 12 from four members of the High Level Group with a background in advocacy for workers, for public health, for the environment and for consumers,
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the aims and objectives of the Union spelled out in Article 3 TEU are all of equal import; whereas the Commission underlines that the REFIT programme does not call into question existing policy objectives, nor doesshould it impact negatively on the health and safety of citizens, consumers, workers or the environment;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the Commission, in establishing its work programme for 2015, for the first time applied the so-called principle of political discontinuity as justification for withdrawing a hugesought to withdraw a number of pending legislative proposals;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the decision of Commission President Juncker to entrust the First Vice- President of the Commission with the portfolio of better regulation, which responds to repeated calls for the Parliament to this effect and underlines the high political importance of this topic;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that better regulation should encompass the ‘culture’ of public administration at all levels of the European Union, and include the implementation and application of Union acts at European level as well as at national, regional and local levels in order to ensure good administration and ’Europe-friendly conduct’ at all levels;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that the Commission should focus more on the quality of legislation rather than on the number of legislative acts; in this regard supports the Commission's approach to scale back the volume of proposals and to prioritise the development of certain measures; advises that those proposals which would contribute most effectively to the promotion of growth and employment be the focus on the Commission in its future activities;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. StresRecognises that a European standard generallmay replaces 28 nationalor more diverging standards, thereby underpinning the single market and cutting down on bureaucracy; assisting the development of the single market; Notes that where no corresponding national legislation exists or the differences among Member States is broad in terms of the scale of problem, legislation may impose new and additional burdens in comparison to national or sectoral legislation;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Welcomes the package of measures aimed at Better Regulation of 19 May, and in particular the REFIT Communication; supports the continued commitment shown by the Commission towards the better law-making agenda; underlines that the work foreseen in the REFIT Communication should be seen as an ongoing process, ensuring that the legislation in force at European level is fit for purpose, achieving the shared objective of the legislators and meeting the expectations of citizens, businesses and other stakeholders;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Considers that the concept of Scoreboards should be modified to instead comprise two documents, one outlining a work plan and the other detailing the progress made by the Commission expressed in a quantitative fashion; calls for this document to form the basis of an annual statement of new costs to business, and an easily understandable statement or ledger of 'debits and credits' in terms of the administrative and regulatory impact of proposals adopted in the previous year, which would be useful, and would demonstrate that the Commission understands the cumulative cost of regulation is problematic;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that four memberSupports the conclusions of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders have come out against several of the conclusions presented in the Group’s final report of on administrative burdens andin the final report; Acknowledges that four members of the High Level Group produced a dissenting opinion; expects the Commission to take into account the concerns of all stakeholders involved in the process;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. UnderlinNotes that the social partners may, in accordance with Article 155 TFEU, conclude agreements apply to a wide range of policy agreementas that can be implemented uniformly; calls on the Commission to respect the autonomy of the parties and theiimpact significantly on businesses; is concerned that Social Partner negotiations have not kept pace with the EU better nregotiated agreements, and to take their concerns seriously, and stulation agenda; Calls on the social partners to embrace better regulation tools, to incresases that the REFIT agenda should not be a pretext for disregarding agreements reached between the social partnerse use of impact assessments in their negotiations and refer agreements proposing legislative action to the Commission's Impact Assessment Board;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the recognition by the Commission of the important role played by the consultation process in the REFIT programme; points out that, according to Article 11(2) TEU, all EU institutions are required to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society; calls on the institutions to pay special attention to the obligatory and regular dialogue with representative associations, and with civil society, in the negotiations on a new interinstitutional agreement and in the Communication on Better Regulation;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Welcomes the commitment of the Commission to improving stakeholder consultation, however, expresses scepticism about the need to have a period time of consultation once a proposal has been adopted; reiterates its belief that there should be a consultation phase on a draft legislative proposal and accompanying draft impact assessment in order to allow stakeholder comments to be incorporated into the proposal ahead of its adoption by the Commission;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that there should be stronger involvement on the part of regional and local authorities in EU policy making, in particular by involving Member State expertise and experience at regional and local levels at an early stage in the preparation of legislation; notes thate role of the Committee of the Regions is an important mouthpiece for these levels of representwith regard to assessing implementation of legislation;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Supports the introduction of the REFIT panel, which can make a strong and positive contribution to improving implementation on the ground of EU law, and monitoring and responding to administrative and regulatory burdens or unintended consequences which arise when applying obligations arising at EU level; believes that the REFIT panel should not be too burdensome in its processes and deliberations, but should be a body capable of fast responses as well as more detailed work into issues and opportunities in various sectors across Europe; stresses that proposals form this Panel should be actively considered by the Commission, and that the Commission should address the proposals in accordance with the 'comply or explain' principle; believes that the Panel could serve as a platform for businesses of collective groups working both nationally or across Europe to submit direct input supporting the better regulation principles of contributing to achieving less bureaucracy in the regulation applying to their sector;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to be more rigorous in assessing the impact of future and existing regulation on SMEs and competitiveness; Believes that a competitiveness assessment should form a significant part of the impact assessment process; considers that the draft revised guidelines should contain direction on how impacts on competitiveness should be assessed and weighted in the final analysis; supports a standing presumption that proposals with a negative impact on competitiveness should not be adopted by the Commission unless evidence supporting significant unquantifiable benefits is presented;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Believes that better regulation principles should apply to decisions on secondary legislation as well as primary legislation; calls on the Commission and its agencies, where appropriate, to accompany delegated and implementing acts with a mandatory impact assessment, including consultation with interested parties and stakeholders;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment regularly to revise the impact assessment guidelines in order to improve this process; believes that the Commission should assess the economic, social and environmental consequences, and better evaluate the impact of its policy on the fundamental rights of citizens in order to fully grasp its effects, keeping in mind that the cost-benefit analysis is only one of many criteria when preparing policy initiatives and that such an obligation should correspondingly be reflected in the impact assessment process;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes note of the conversion ofSupports the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) into a ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’(RSB) and expects that the inclusion of independent experts will have an advantageous effe positive impact on the impact assessment process within the Commission; insists that impact assessments should be based on estimating what the addibelieves that the advantages brought by the RBS could be further realised if it serves as a body shared between the three institutionals, costs would be for the Member States if there were no solution at European levelntributing not only to the Commission's preparatory work but also to the development of impact assessment analysis throughout the legislative process;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Welcomes the undertaking of the Commission to not proceed with inter- service consultation without a positive opinion of the RSB; reiterates and underlines, however, that the final proposal and impact assessment must be consistent, and must therefore reflect any changes introduced at the inter-service consultation phase; considers, therefore, that the positive opinion of the RSB should be required on the documentation accompanying the final legislative proposal presented to the College, and not only on the drafts presented at the earlier stage;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Welcomes the fact that the Council Working Parties are now, at an early stage of the debate on specific legislative proposals, to consider the relevant Commission impact assessments on the basis of an indicative check list: regrets, however, that the Council Secretariat does not yet have an impact assessment unit of its own, gi and believens that it should at leastaforementioned solution could contribute towards the Council fulfilling its obligations in assessing any substantive amendments to the Commission proposals;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Urges Parliament’s specialist committees to make more consistent use of in-house impact assessment instruments, particularly where substantial changes to the original Commission proposal are being envisaged; believes, in this regard, that at the initial debate on each legislative proposal the Commission should be invited to present its proposal and an overview of the findings of the accompanying impact assessment; considers that this discussion could be followed by an exchange of views on the appraisal of the impact assessment prepared by the Parliament's services, particularly if deficiencies are identified; notes the use of the impact assessment services by European Parliament committees where substantial changes to the Commission's original proposal are envisaged and their useful contribution to the legislative scrutiny process; emphasises that this should not be seen as a political judgement but rather as a method of introducing independent analysis in support of Parliament's amendments;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses the need to take account of the horizontal, social and ecological provisions of the Lisbon Treaty (Articles 9 and 11 TFEU) in defining and implementing Union actions and policies; calls on all EU institutions always to consider the short- and long-term effects of legislation; believes that, while the focus of such assessments is primarily on monetary factors, and on easily quantifiable criteria such as economic operators costs, the long-term value of legislation, such as the reduction of adverse health effects or the preservation of ecosystems, is often difficult to quantify, and that, as a consequence, social and environmental costs and benefits are not taken into adequate accounteach of the principles upon which the Union is founded, including the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; calls on all EU institutions always to consider the short- and long-term effects of legislation;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. In this regard, notes the importance of reinforcing cooperation with national parliaments in the legislative process by engaging them at an earlier stage and thoroughly evaluating their opinions in instances where concerns have been raised and by making use of a stronger 'red card' procedure; highlights that this will help to reduce the democratic deficit;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Notes that a cooling off period taken after the conclusion of negotiations but in advance of a final vote - presently used for lawyer-linguistic revision - could be further utilised for the completion of an impact assessment and subsidiarity check;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Believes that all EU institutions should develop a common methodological approach to impact assessments, and calls on them to include this as a priority in the upcoming negotiations on a new interinstitutional agreement; stresserecalls the fact that the legislative impact assessments do not and have not impinged on the prerogatives of Parliament and the Council to amend a proposal from the Commission must remain undiminishedbut rather facilitate better lawmaking;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Urges the Commission to increase its consultation procedure, both public and private, with all stakeholders, including consumes, when preparing delegated and implementing acts, with a view to considering how to enhance awareness of proposals at a provisional stage;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Strongly believes that such efforts to increase their input before finalising recommendations will lead to better legislation; in this regard, welcomes possible initiatives to compare processes for consulting on provisional rules or standards with those used in other jurisdictions to share and develop best practice;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)
Paragraph 18 c (new)
18c. Where legislation is proposed in a complex field, considers that a second stage consultation should be envisaged whereby a draft legislative act is published, accompanied by a provisional impact assessment for comment by all relevant stakeholders; considers that this second state would introduce further rigor into the Commission’s analysis and strengthen the case for any proposal adopted following this process;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the Commission’s clear commitment to further improving the SME test, particularly in view of the extremely large number of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the cornerstone of economic activity and employment; supports consideration of adapted agreements and more flexible SME impact assessment rules, provided that it can be shownrules for SMEs, provided that that they do not undermine the effectiveness of legal provisions and that exemptions or more flexible provisions do not encouragelead to fragmentation of the sinternal market or hamper access to it; gle market or hamper access to it; strongly encourages the Commission to build on the progress it has made in this area by continuing to cut the cost of legislation for micro- enterprises and extending these efforts to cover all SMEs as a starting provision, to be rebutted by evidence, where appropriate;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Commission not to abandon its ambitious targets of reducing the regulatory and administrative burden on SMEs and thereby helping to establish a basis for the creation of quality jobs and urges that measures be taken to ensure that objectives concerning the public interest including user-friendly, ecological, social, health and safety and gender-equality standards are not compromisedimproved competitiveness, stronger economic growth and the creation of quality jobs; stresses that reductions in burdens should avoid negative impacts on objectives concerning the public interest and emphasises that simpler or less burdensome application of rules and regulations can be achieved without sacrificing the aims and objectives of legislation;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Insists that the Commission should establish a European objective of a 30 per cent reduction in costs generated by administrative and compliance costs and regulatory burdens for each policy area by 2020;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)
Paragraph 20 b (new)
20b. Believes that policy makers must ensure that legislation encourages innovation by assessing the impact of risk management legislation on innovation;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 c (new)
Paragraph 20 c (new)
20c. Stresses that a Single Market which does not over-burden or frustrate production, innovation and commerce is a structure that will bring jobs and growth back to Europe 're-shoring', which previously would have been located outside Europe where standards are lower;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 d (new)
Paragraph 20 d (new)
20d. Stresses, therefore, that the shared responsibility for improved Single Market regulation will lead to the realisation of the shared benefits; a strong and vibrant Single Market contributing to the long- term growth of Europe and thus the prosperity of its citizens;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Stresses the need for more clearly worded regulations that can be implemented in a simple manner and can help all actors, including entrepreneurs, operate within the rule of law; Underlines that simpler, smarter regulation leads to consistent transposition and more effective and uniform enforcement by Member States;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is making ex-post analysis an integral part of better regulation; stresses that, in the interests of legal certainty for citizens and businesses, such analyses should be carried out within a sufficient time-frame, preferably several years after the deadline for transposition into national lawhave a long term view in mind, focusing on the impact of legislation in terms of addressing the policy challenge it intended to resolve;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Underlines that rolling reviews should not be the only ex-post evaluation undertaken, but rather the Commission should also review implementation on the ground as new legislation enters into force; believes that often teething problems and urgent impediments towards achieving the objectives of the legislation manifest themselves clearly once businesses, consumers and other affected stakeholders apply the rules; in this regard, stresses that the Commission should have a 'fast reaction' system which responds to these unforeseen challenges to address any serious implementation concerns over and above any regulatory fitness and general improvement of the acquis;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Considers that national parliaments should be involved in the ex-post evaluation of new legislation, as this would not only contribute to strengthening their common European responsibility but also benefit the Commission’s reportalso benefit the Commission’s reports and help explore the different national challenges posed by individual laws and regulations;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Acknowledges that, in most cases, it is the prerogative of the Member States to decide whether to adopt higher social and environmental standards at national level than those agreed upon at EU level, and welcomes any decision to do so; calls, however, on the competent national authorities to be aware of the possible consequence of the so-called practice of ‘gold plating’, by which unnecessary bureaucratic burdens are added to EU legislation, since this may lead to a misconception of the legislative activity of the EU, which in turn might foster EU scepticism; recommends, for the sake of transparency and user-friendliness, that any additional innovations introduced at national level be clearly identified as such;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Points out that the Commission, in consequence of its right of legislative initiative, may at any time in the course of a procedure for the adoption of a Union act withdraw a proposal as long as the Council has not yet taken any decision on it; stresses, however, that the Commission’s readiness to take into account the views of the Parliament in questions relating to the withdrawal or amendment of legislative proposals, constitutes an essential element of the political trust between the two institutions;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30