BETA

Activities of Sajjad KARIM related to 2016/2018(INI)

Shadow reports (1)

REPORT on the interpretation and implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making PDF (340 KB) DOC (127 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: AFCOJURI
Dossiers: 2016/2018(INI)
Documents: PDF(340 KB) DOC(127 KB)

Amendments (23)

Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital T a (new)
Ta. whereas the Annual Burden Survey offers a unique opportunity to identify and monitor the results of EU efforts to avoid overregulation and reduce administrative burdens; believes in this regard that the Annual Burden Survey provides an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the added value of EU legislation and to provide transparency to our citizens;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that the Commission should, when presenting its Work Programme, in addition to the elements referred to in paragraph 8 of the new IIA, indicate evidence as to how the envisaged legislation is justifiable in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and specify its European added value;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses that the Commission should urgently fulfil its commitment to reducing regulatory burdens in specific key sectors and propose sectors where specific policy areas could be returned to Member States;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to present more inclusive, more detailed and more reliable Work Programmfocused, evidence-based Work Programmes with both legislative and non-legislative measures; requests, in particular, that the Commission Work Programmes clearly indicate the legal nature of each proposal with accurate and realistic timeframes; calls on the Commission to ensure that forthcoming legislative proposals – especially key legislative packages – arrive well before the end of this legislative term, namely early in 2018, thereby giving the co- legislators enough time to exercise their prerogatives in full;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the fact that the Commission replied to Parliament’s requests for proposals for Union acts under Article 225 TFEU, for the most part within the three-month deadline referred to in paragraph 10 of the new IIA; points out, however, that the Commission failed to adopt specific communications as foreseen in that provision; calls on the Commission to adopt such communications with a view to ensuring full transparency and providing a political response to requests made by Parliament in its resolutions, and with due regard for Parliament’s relevant European Added Value and Cost of Non- Europe analyses;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Welcomes the new IIA’s provisions on impact assessments, notably the principle that they may inform but never be a substitute for political decisions or cause undue delays to the legislative process; recalls that the Commission, in the Small Business Act, made a commitment to implementing the ‘think small first’ principle in its policymaking, and that this includes the SME test to assess the impact of forthcoming legislation and administrative initiatives on SMEs27 ; recalls that in its decision of 9 March 2016 on the new IIA Parliament stated that the wording of the new IIA does not sufficiently commit the three Institutions to include SME and competitiveness tests in their impact assessments28 ; underlines that, throughout the legislative procedure and in all assessments of the impact of proposed legislation, particular attention must be paid to the potential impacts on competitiveness and those who have least opportunity to present their concerns to decision takers, including SMEs and others who do not have the advantage of easy access to the Institutions; stresses the importance of taking into account and paying attention to the needs of SMEs at all stages of the legislative cycle and expresses satisfaction that the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines prescribe that potential impacts on SMEs and competitiveness should be considered and reported systematically in all impact assessments; encourages the Commission to consider how the impact on SMEs can be better taken into account even better, including in connection with the European added value of a proposal, and intends to followmonitor this issue closely in the years to come; _________________ 27 See Parliament’s resolution of 27 November 2014 on the revision of the Commission’s impact assessment guidelines and the role of the SME test (OJ C 289, 9.8.2016, p. 53), paragraph 16. 28 See Parliament’s resolution of 9 March 2016 on the conclusion of an Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0081), paragraph 4.
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the inclusion of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the scope of impact assessments; stresses, in this regard, that impact assessments should always encompass a thorough and rigorous analysis of the compliance of a proposal with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and specify its European added valuethat they should also be carried out once legislation has been substantially amended;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Expresses disappointment at the fact that many Commission proposals, including politically sensitive proposals, were not accompanied by impact assessments, in spite of the commitment made by the Commission in paragraph 13 of the new IIA; points out that experience from committees so far suggests that the quality and level of detail of impact assessments varies from the comprehensive to the rather superficial; points out that in the first phase of application of the new IIA, 20 of the 59 Commission proposals included in the 2017 joint declaration were not accompanied by impact assessments, which can lead to long delays in the legislative process due to unforeseen elements which were not considered by the Commission; recalls in this regard that, while it is in any case foreseen that initiatives which are expected to have a significant social, competitiveness, economic or environmental impact should be accompanied by an impact assessment, the initiatives included in the Commission Work Programme or in the joint declaration should, as a general rule,lways be accompanied by an thorough, evidence-based impact assessment;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Commission to further clarify how it intends to assess the cost of non-Europe – inter alia the costs for producers, consumers, workers, administrations and the environment of not having harmonised legislation at European leveladopting Single Market legislation in specific sectors and where divergent national rules may cause extra costs for businesses and consumers and render policies less effective - (as referred to in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the new IIA); points out that such an assessment should not only be conducted in the event of sunset clauses, towards the end of a programme, or when a repeal is envisaged, but should also be considered in cases where action or legislation at EU level is not yet in place or under review;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls that replacing the former Impact Assessment Board with the new Regulatory Scrutiny Board is a welcome first step to achieving an independent board; reiterates that the independence, transparency and objectiveness of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and its work must be safeguarded and that the members of the Board should not be subjected to political control29 ; stresses the importance of ensuring that all of the Board’s opinions, including negative ones, are made public and accessible at the same time as the relevant impact assessments are published; believes that the new Regulatory Scrutiny Board must show more ambition; calls for an evaluation and follow-up of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in fulfilling its role of supervising and providing objective advice on impact assessments; _________________ 29 See Parliament’s resolution of 27 November 2014, cited above, paragraph 12; Parliament decision of 9 March 2016, cited above, paragraph 6.
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Points out that Parliament’s Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, established within its administration, assists parliamentary committees and offers them a variety of services, for which sufficient resources must be available so as to ensure that Members and committees receive the best possible support available; notes with appreciation the fact that the Conferenceconsiders that these services should include subsidiarity and proportionality impact assessments and competitiveness tests; underlines that impact assessments should be made available in circumstances when political groups representing at least 40% of the number of members of Ca committee Chairs adopted anrequest an impact assessment and that such impact assessments are a valuable tool in negotiations; supports the updated version of the ‘Impact Assessment Handbook -– Guidelines for Committees’ on 12 September 2017;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Calls for the Impact Assessment Handbook, and if necessary its Rules of Procedure, to provide that an impact assessment on substantive amendments can be requested by a committee where it is supported by political groups representing at least 40% of the number of members of that committee; firmly believes that impact assessments on Parliament’s amendments will help to reinforce its position without replacing the political decision-making process;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls that under paragraph 14 of the new IIA, upon considering Commission legislative proposals, Parliament will take full account of the Commission’s impact assessments; recalls in this context that parliamentary committees may invite the Commission to present its impact assessment and the policy option chosen at a full committee meeting and invites its committees to avail themselves of this opportunity more regularly, and of the possibility to see a presentation of the initial appraisal of the Commission’s impact assessment by Parliament’s own services;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the possibility that the Commission complements its own impact assessments during the legislative process; considers that paragraph 16 of the new IIA should be interpreted to the effect that, when requested by Parliament or the Council, the Commission should as a rule promptly provide such complementary impact assessments, including on subsidiarity and proportionality;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Regrets that the IIA failed to recognise the importance and relevance of the innovation principle in all policy sectors; calls on the Commission to assess the impact of legislation on innovation;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
27. Welcomes the commitments made by the Commission as regards the scope of the explanatory memorandum accompanying each of its proposals; expresses particular satisfaction at the fact that the Commission will also explain how the measures proposed are justified in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; underlines in this regard the importance of a strengthened and comprehensive assessment and justification regarding compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
29. Draws attention to the fact that in paragraph 25 of the new IIA, the Commission only committed to taking ‘due account of the difference in nature and effects between regulations and directives’; reiterates its request that, pursuing the same approach as that outlined in the Monti report, greater use should be made of regulations in legislative proposals30 , in accordance with the legal requirements established by the Treaties as to their use, in order to ensure consistency, simplicity, and legal certainty across the Union; _________________ 30See Parliament’s resolution of 14 September 2011 on better legislation, subsidiarity and proportionality and smart regulation, paragraph 5.deleted
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
37. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment, should broader expertise be needed for the early preparation of draft implementing acts, to regularly make use of expert groups, consult targeted stakeholders and carry out public consultations, as appropriate; considers that, whenever any such consultation process is initiated, Parliament should be duly informed;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
47. Underlines the importance of the principle set out in paragraph 43 of the new IIA, that when the Member States, in the context of transposing directives into national law, choose to add elements that are in no way related to that Union legislation, such additions should be made identifiable either through the transposing act(s) or through associated documents; notes that this information is often still lacking; calls on the Commission and the Member States to act jointly and consistently to tackle the lack of transparency and other problems related toto reduce ‘gold-plating’36 ; _________________ 36 See Parliament’s resolution of 21 November 2012 on the 28th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2010) (OJ C 419, 16.12.2015, p. 73), paragraph 7.
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)
47a. Urges the Commission to be more ambitious in establishing the agreed Annual Burden Survey without delay, as it can play a key role in the implementation and application of EU legislation, in particular the scrutiny of Member States’ transposition of directives, and of all national measures that go beyond the provisions of EU legislation (‘gold-plating’) whilst bearing in mind that Member States are free to apply higher standards if only minimum standards are defined by Union law;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
53. Welcomes the Commission’s first annual burden survey undertaken in the context of simplification of EU legislation, for which it carried out a Flash Eurobarometer survey on business perceptions of regulation, interviewing over 10 000 businesses across the 28 Member States, mainly SMEs and reflecting the distribution of business in the EU; stresses the importance of the annual burden survey in identifying problems with the implementation and application of EU legislation; draws attention to the findings of the survey, which confirm that the focus on cutting unnecessary costs remains appropriate and suggest that there is a complex interplay of different factors that influence the perception of businesses, which may also be caused by variations in national administrative and legal set ups concerning the implementation of legislation; points out that gold plating and even inaccurate media coverage can also affect such perception; agrees with the Commission that the only way to identify concretely what can actually be simplified, streamlined or eliminated is to seek views from all stakeholders on specific pieces of legislation or various pieces of legislation that apply to a particular sector; calls on the Commission to refine the annual burden survey, on the basis of the lessons learnt from the first edition, to apply transparent and verifiable data collection methods, to pay particular regard to SMEs’ needs, and to include both actual and perceived burdens;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
54. Takes note, furthermore, of the outcome of the Commission’s assessment of the feasibility, without detriment to the purpose of legislation, of establishing objectives to reduce burdens in specific sectors; encourages the Commission to set burden reduction objectives for each initiative in a flexible but evidence-based and reliable manner, and to suggest policy areas which may be returned to Member States, in full consultation with stakeholders, as it does already under REFIT;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)
54a. Reminds the Commission of its commitment in the IIA to burden reduction and calls for the Commission as a matter of urgency to come forward with proposals establishing targets for the reduction of burdens in key sectors as soon as possible, while continuing to ensure high standards of consumer, employee, health and environmental protection;
2018/02/13
Committee: JURIAFCO