CEEP’s Comments on Draft Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Regulation

Ahead of the consideration of the draft report on the conclusion of an Interinstitutional Agremeent on Better Law-Making tomorrow in the AFCO committee, CEEP re-stated its comments on the draft interinstitutional agreement reached on the 8th of December 2015.

CEEP welcomes the provisional agreement and calls for a speedy adoption in the European Parliament. In the CEEP opinion published in July (download below), public services providers and employers welcomed the principles and tools underpinning the Better regulation approach proposed by the European Commission. A balanced implementation will create the right regulatory environment for the modernisation of public services across Europe.

In particular CEEP insisted that the Better regulation agenda needs to be a collective effort in order to be effective and legitimate. The draft Interinstitutional Agreement clarifies the approach for implementing Better Regulation and should therefore be adopted as soon as possible. It strengthens the equal footing of co-legislators and strikes the right balance between democratic and evidence-based decision-making. The negotiators also agreed to be ambitious on simplification of existing legislation through a collective effort. CEEP however regrets the lack of concrete commitments on transparency. We call the institutions to follow up on this issue.

In particular, CEEP would like to make following comments:

1. ON TRANSPARENCY

We welcome the new pledges made by the European institutions in terms of transparency, however further discussions on this matter are needed. CEEP called on more transparency around the composition of expert groups for implementing and delegated acts. Furthermore, it called the three institutions “to be ambitious in enhancing the transparency of trilateral negotiations”.

For delegated and implementing acts, the Commission commits to carry out public consultations and ensure equal access to information to the European Parliament and the Council. Furthermore by end of 2017 the three institutions commit to set up a joint functional register of delegated acts to enable better traceability.

Also, to facilitate traceability of various legislative steps, the institutions undertake to identify ways of further developing platforms and tools by 31 December 2016, with a view to establishing a dedicated joint database on the state of play of legislative files.

Such initiatives are most welcomed.

Most importantly, the EU institutions commit to “ensure the transparency of legislative procedures […] including an appropriate handling of trilateral negotiations”. CEEP calls the institutions to pursue discussions on what an “appropriate handling” means. The wording continues to be too weak seen the importance of trilogues in the ordinary legislative procedure.

2. ON IMPACT ASSESSMENT

As rightly stated in the provisional agreement, impact assessments should be a tool to help well-informed decisions and should not substitute political and democratic decision-making or lead to undue delay. In its opinion, CEEP expressed the necessity to strike the right balance between evidenced-base and democratic decision-making. Furthermore, CEEP called to better take into account regional and local impacts.

CEEP welcomes that the provisional agreement mentions that impact assessments have to “assess economic, environmental and social impacts in an integrated and balanced way”. Furthermore, whenever possible, impact assessments will look at the cost of non-Europe and the impact on competitiveness and administrative burdens, having particular regard for SMEs (“Think Small First”), digital aspects and territorial impact.

Such a balanced approach is the right way to support the modernisation of public services. The application of the “Think Small First” principle should ensure that EU legislation is fit for purpose for all types of small enterprises, including local public services enterprises.

Furthermore, CEEP welcomes that the co-legislators keep full discretionary power on when and how to carry out an impact assessment on substantial amendments.

3. ON PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

CEEP has been calling for more effective public consultations procedures. In this regard, it stressed the importance of factors such as timing, intelligible drafting and transparency on how the results are taken into account. CEEP also called for the possibility to comment on draft impact assessments issued by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.

In this regard, CEEP welcomes that the Commission commits to encourage direct participation of “SMEs and other end-users”. Also, in its explanatory memoranda accompanying any legislative proposal, the Commission has to give an account of both the scope and the results of any stakeholder consultation (next to ex-post evaluation of existing legislation and impact assessment). These elements are a step in the good direction for more effective public consultations procedures, although a stronger wording would have been welcomed.

Also, CEEP welcomes that the three institutions reiterated the full respect of the autonomy of social partner agreements.

4. ON SIMPLIFICATION

CEEP believes that simplification of existing legislation can greatly benefit the modernisation of SGEIs in Europe. However, it shall not undermine the balance between the three fundamental policy objectives of the EU and should guarantee predictable legislation. Therefore, CEEP welcomes that the three institutions “agree to cooperate in order to update and simplify legislation […] while ensuring that the objectives of the legislation are met.”