Time to take a scalpel to the EU’s regulatory fat?

Impact assessments on key proposals, will enable us to make more informed decisions, when faced with competing interests, says Arlene McCarthy

Since the European Commission re-launched the Lisbon Agenda, putting better regulation at the heart of the drive for jobs and growth in the EU, we have seen a frenzy of announcements, designed to scrap what President José Manuel Barroso has called 'absurd laws', while initiatives on simplification and impact assessments will, some say, lead to a bonfire of red tape and bureaucracy.

The improvement in European law-making processes is designed to assist Europe in regaining a competitive edge, in a global marketplace, where more and more of our services and manufacturing are outsourced to China and India.

For some stakeholders, the better regulation agenda does not go far enough, but some fear the 'less is more' mantra is the path to de-regulation, ending in low social standards, low wages and environmental neglect. But neither is the case. The key objective is to ensure better quality legislation. Sadly, the prevailing perception of the EU is that of a bureaucratic sausage machine, churning out more and more regulations.

If we are to gain the confidence of our citizens, consumers and businesses and enhance the credibility of the EU as an effective and relevant legislator by taking up the challenges and opportunities in the global world, then we need to improve the way that we make European laws.

The world as we know it has changed, it is now possible for companies to organise a production and supply chain from Boston to Brussels to Bangalore. How do institutions legislate in a world that is driven by the information technology revolution?

The Commission should focus less on grandiose statements and more on the need to change its own culture, which is used to responding to every problem with a directive or a regulation, regardless of whether it is the right solution. The introduction of impact assessments will assist in bringing forward a more informed analysis of new EU laws. Improved consultation with stakeholders can help reassure consumer groups, businesses and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), that their voice does matter and is taken into account in the drafting of clear and simple legislation, while ex-post evaluation is also required to test whether the laws have achieved their stated objectives. This is part of the virtuous cycle of reviewing and repealing legislation, if necessary.

The member states must play a part in ensuring that re-drafting of Commission and Parliament legislation does not result in unclear, fudged proposals, leading to problems of implementation. In one case, some 219 guidelines had to be drawn up by industry bodies, to try to make sense of a poorly drafted text. Back in the member state, the temptation is there to add more national requirements to the EU law. If national requirements are to be added, they should be both justified to stakeholders and clearly spelt out in the implementation process. The Internal Market Scoreboard demonstrates that member states need to improve their transposition rates.

The Parliament, too, must play a full role and its democratic prerogative as a co-legislator must be respected, so that it can apply the necessary checks and balances in the legislative process. We are committing resources to carrying out impact assessments on key proposals, which will enable us to make more informed decisions, when faced with competing stakeholders' interests, arguing for different approaches. Thousands of amendments tabled on controversial legislative proposals are counter-productive to achieving clear and precise laws. Stakeholders must also embrace the better regulation agenda and justify their demands for substantial changes or amendments. They should exercise restraint in using the legislative process, in the Parliament, to achieve an advantage over their competitors.

The EU's credibility and the integrity of the legislative process can be enhanced if we get it right. Citizens and businesses will benefit from good, clear, simple laws, easy to transpose and easy to police. Wielding a scalpel and cutting 'absurd laws' is one way to get better regulation; however, it would be wiser never to have passed absurd laws in the first place.

UK Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy is rapporteur on better regulation in Parliament's internal market committee.

Quality of regulation is first and foremost a function of informed and vigorous political action, says Monica Frassoni

Better regulation: with these two magic words, the European Commission is trying to re-conquer the trust and confidence of Europe's citizens. But who really benefits from the Commission's better regulation initiative?

The initiative consists mainly of two elements: the screening of standing legislative proposals and improved impact assessment to increase the quality of new Commission proposals.

As for the first element, in the communication on better regulation for growth and jobs, published in March, the Commission announced its intention to screen legislative proposals adopted by the Commission before 1 January 2004 and still pending before the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, claiming to strengthen social and environmental standards. Exactly the opposite is happening, however. Take, for example, the environmental sector. The Commission adopted a 'compromise text' on the REACH chemical legislation, without any prior consultation with the Parliament, which essentially represents the project's funeral. And this happened just a few days before an important Parliamentary committee vote on REACH.

As for improved impact assessment, this does very little but reveals the Commission's dependence on industrial lobbies. For example, the Commission ordered an impact assessment costing EUR 2 million for its planned legislation on air pollution. The results, however, apparently did not produce the 'right' conclusions and, after receiving a critical letter from employers' association UNICE, the Commission simply dropped its proposals.

What is particularly sad to see is the full support that the Commission President José Manuel Barroso received from the leaders of the Conservative, Socialist and Liberal groups, when they should have been appalled by his apathetic vision. Allegedly the 'guardian of the treaties', Barroso declared himself ready to defer dealing with the EU constitution until better times come along, whereas his grand political project for the coming years apparently, consists of the withdrawal of 63 useless directives and the screening of the existing EU rulebook. This is hardly visionary stuff.

Of course some of the legislation that is earmarked for the scrapheap is not very important, but it seems like Barroso simply lacks the energy to fight for some of the other, more controversial, proposals. Among these are much-needed laws on insurance and European associations that have been blocked by the Council and are now stuck in legislative limbo. Other laws are victims of Barroso's misguided opinion that in order to revive the economy you have to neglect the environment and public health. One cannot but be astonished by President Barroso's new calls for impact assessments for legislation that is already in second reading, and for which Council agreement has already been reached, including the proposals on F-gases and waste shipment.

I am afraid our inter-institutional relationship is rapidly becoming as difficult as it was ten years ago. But surprisingly, the leaders of the three main political parties fail to play their role as scrutineers of the Commission and instead give their full support to Barroso in his moment of agony.

Better regulation is a noble and important concept to fight for. But the quality of regulation is still first and foremost a function of informed and vigorous political action. And as long as the Commission uses the tools of the 'better regulation' initiative as an excuse to avoid, prevent, or bypass that political debate to the benefit of corporate interests, the initiative will do precious little to reassure Europe's citizens. For them, better regulation means also and, above all, guaranteeing the effective and correct implementation of existing European legislation in all sectors, with no exceptions.

• Italian Green MEP Monica Frassoni is a member of the Parliament's legal affairs committee.

Two MEPs take a look at the European Commission's initiative for 'Better Regulation' which includes the screening of legislation in force as well as the better use of impact assessment in new proposals.