New book on How to Work with EU

Message from Erick Akse, a regulatory reform expert close to our network who is co-author of the 2nd edition of this best-seller:

"Dear fellow-networkers, 

I am very proud that I can announce that my second book on EU Decision-Making is now available. You will find it in many bookshops in Brussels with a clear EU-orientation. Of course, it is also available in online bookstores. 

The title of the book is: 'How the EU Institutions Work and... How to Work with the EU Institutions'. 

It is a highly practical guidebook for everyone that works with or is interested in the functioning of the European Union. The book has a proven track record since it is the second edition of a much-valued first publication

The book describes how the EU Institutions function; explains the most often used legislative process, the OLP, for adopting EU legislation; shows how Delegated and Implementing Acts are developed and approved; and combines the institutional and procedural information with practical information on how to work with the EU Institutions and EU Decision-Making"

Commission unclutters EU legislative agenda

One of the most original features of the EU smart regulation policy, not often present at national level, is the periodic removal of older, outdated or obsolete  proposals from the legislative agenda, to be replaced by revised or more comprehensive initiatives more likely to be adopted by the legislators (Council and Parliament). This has been practiced regularly by the European Commission since the beginning of the better regulation initiative in the early 2000's. A new wave of "withdrawals of pending proposals" was announced by the EC on 7 March 2015 and is presented as a way to cut red tape and remove regulatory burdens, contributing to an environment conducive to investment. With fewer and more recently drafted proposals from the Commission on the table, the legislative procedure is supposed to be better focused and produce clearer rules.   From the press release: "The Commission decided the withdrawal of 73 pending legislative proposals, with the adoption of the Commission's Work Programme for 2015 on 16 December 2014. The list of withdrawn proposals has now been published in the Official Journal of the European Union. This confirmation of the withdrawals follows constructive discussions with the other institutions in which the Commission has heard their views. The Commission will continue to work on the implementation of its Work Programme in close partnership with the other institutions, including through the tabling of more ambitious and comprehensive proposals on the Circular Economy, after the withdrawal today of the Waste Package."

The rôle of parliament in better regulation (Paris conference)

Your blogger was honoured to moderate a half-day conference, organised on 5 December jointly by the OECD and the French Senate, on the rôle of Parliaments in the search for Better Regulation. The event, announced in a previous post, brought together MPs and staffers from France, the UK, Sweden and the EU to compare institutional competences and methods to start sharing best practice. The OECD outlined the issue in a concept paper, the first paragraphs of which are quoted below:
"The Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance is clear: "Ensuring the quality of the regulatory structure is a dynamic and permanent role of governments and Parliaments". As the institutions responsible for approving legislation, parliaments can exercise oversight and control over the application of better regulation principles for new and amended regulation. Through the public debate of proposed bills and amendments, they can help foster a transparent dialogue on the opportunities and challenges offered by new and amended regulation. Through the control they exercise on public expenditures and government performance, they can help monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of regulation.
OECD surveys of regulatory management show a progressive move towards strengthening the role of parliaments in improving regulatory quality. In 2008, 15 jurisdictions (14 OECD member countries and the EU) had a parliamentary committee or other parliamentary body responsible for regulatory policy or reform against 11 in 2005. In seven cases, this committee or body conducts periodic reviews of the quality of proposed legislation. In eight cases, it conducts quality reviews of subordinate legislation. In five cases, the review process is guided by specific criteria. In six the committee or body regularly reports on progress on regulatory policy and reform across government. Consultation is also often an integral part of the legislative process. For example, in New Zealand, Parliament invites public submissions on almost all bills and these are considered by a select committee before it makes recommendations. "
The first panel was devoted to recent changes in the French approach to the matter, which shows that the traditional emphasis on formal quality of the texts and a concern for full enactment, is gradually incorporating a keener sense of regulatory impacts on the economy, parlty under the influence of the principles of smart regulation promoted by Brussels. The second panel introduced several foreign good practices with contributions from the UK, Sweden and European parliaments. This blog will watch for the publication of the proceedings, which will hopefully reflect the many sound ideas about how parliaments and governments can cooperate, by way of the use of RIAs and other methods, to enact better and economically efficient regulation. Videos of the key moments of the conference are already uploaded on the site of the Senate.

Two BR events on 5 December

1/ - Paris: OECD/French Senate workshop on the role of parliaments in better regulation (by invitation from Registration).

"A key task of Parliament is to vote on the law. It is also necessary that the law is clear and enforceable. However, the increasing complexity of contemporary societies has led to a proliferation of bad quality and complex normative texts. To stop this tendency is a government objective taking various routes : codification , simplification laws , legistics, evaluation of the quality and the normativity of the law, etc. In the context of globalization , the challenge is not just legislative drafting and legal quality, public authorities must also ensure effective implementation of the effects of laws passed , and preserve the economic competitiveness and attractiveness of the country.

There are international instruments to promote these goals, especially at the OECD, which has set up a committee on regulatory policy and adopted in 2012 a Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance . Similarly, parliaments, sharing the objectives of good governance and the quality of legislation, are becoming more attentive to the way laws are implemented and achieve their results, as shown by the development of boards or units providing assessment of bills and laws and the increasing use of assessment tools like CBA and RIA.

This symposium , organized by the Senate Committee for the control of implementation of laws, in partnership with OECD, aims to better identify the role that Parliaments can play in assessing the quality of legislation . Based on testimonies and an exchange of best practices between French institutions and foreign parliamentary assemblies , it will discuss the role of parliaments in the processes and the tools they use for this purpose" (from the organisers' leaflet.)

2/ - The Hague: International Seminar on "Executive discretion and regulatory decision making – Issues and challenges in making regulation more effective" organised by the NL Academy for Legislation (by invitation). 

"The question of the appropriate amount of discretion that the executive branch should wield, and within it in particular regulatory bodies, is central to the understanding of how regulation and enforcement work, and to efforts to make them both more effective and efficient.

Proponents of regulatory discretion consider that it is the only way to escape the conundrum of writing exceedingly specific rules that end up being unwieldy and rapidly obsolete – and lend themselves to “gaming the system” by rogue operators. Critics point towards the risk of abuse, be it regulatory capture or corruption, abuse of power, and breakdown of the rule of law. One of the questions may be if it is at all possible to have enforcement of any type of rule without some sort of discretion." For more information, contact Florentin Blanc.

Le budget soutient la MAP, et réciproquement (France)

La direction du budget vient de remettre son rapport d'activité 2012 et il est intéressant d'examiner la partie consacrée à la MAP (p. 48) : "La modernisation de l'action publique (MAP) a été lancée en octobre 2012 avec pour objectif de définir et mettre en oeuvre des réformes structurelles tout en améliorant la qualité des services publics. La MAP doit ainsi contribuer au redressement des finances publiques et à la compétitivité de l'économie, principalement via les évaluations des politiques publiques (EPP), les programmes ministériels de modernisation et de simplification (PMMS) et des chantiers transversaux. L'exercice est piloté par le secrétariat général pour la modernisation de l'action publique (SGMAP). La direction du Budget lui apporte les données de cadrage budgétaire et de finances publiques. [...] La direction du Budget a également été associée à l'élaboration des programmes ministériels de modernisation et de simplification. Elle est par ailleurs fortement impliquée dans certains chantiers transversaux portant sur la rationalisation de la chaîne de dépense de l'Etat, ou l'amélioration de la politique d'achats de l'Etat. Le travail de la direction du budget (préparation du budget annuel et des budgets pluriannuels, propositions de réformes structurelles, prévisions de finances publiques à moyen terme, suivi de la performance notamment) alimente la démarche de revue de la dépense conduite à travers la MAP. Inversement, les travaux conduits dans le cadre de la MAP sont indispensables pour nourrir la procédure budgétaire de pistes de réformes ambitieuses et contribuer au respect des engagements en matière de finances publiques."
On notera également une nouvelle mission sur la maîtrise des dépenses publiques, qui examinera en particulier la responsabilité de la complexité du droit interne aux administrations dans les dérives budgétaires. L'idée est d'associer plus étroitement les collectivités territoriales à l'assainissement des finances publiques, en harmonisant les compétences, les budgets et les comptabilités des trois fonctions publiques (Etat, protection sociale, collectivités) et simplifier leur mise en œuvre au sein de la MAP.

RIA developments on both sides of the Atlantic

What happens when two leading research institutes (UCL CLES and ENA CERA, respectively in London and Paris), join forces to research good policy making? Excellent and very useful work, judging by the quality of the output of the Gutenberg project, headed by Drs I. Lianos and F. Larat. As announced on this blog, some 50 academics and practitioners from Europe and America gathered in Paris for "Theory and practice of RIA in Europe" on 10 June. The first session was largely devoted to a detailed presentation and discussion of the findings of the Gutenberg project, which aims to portray and analyse the development of the use of impact assessments (RIAs) throughout the European Union as a standard of good governance and, in some cases, as a legal obligation on regulators. Their research involved a large scale scrutiny of published RIAs in 18 countries (+ the EU) since 2005, supported by sound conceptual planning: the "evidence/politics nexus",six hypothetical models of RIAs, eight key features for rating RIAs, 125 indicators clustered in 5 lead indicators, etc. It has delivered a number of comparison tables which may rank with the Doing Business index for scientific backing and clear methodological basis. Their work will become a must-read for RIA practitioners.
Of the marathon of about 30 presentations which followed, highlights included, in order of appearance (with apologies to all those not mentioned):
- Andrea Renda (CEPS) examined, on the basis of a painstaking scrutiny of all EC RIAs, whether impact assessment has improved EU policymaking (answer: "mixed evidence, but tendency is promising") and gave an expert view on where smart regulation was heading;
- Jonathan Wiener (Duke) was riveting with a history of RIA forerunners since the XVIIIth century, then focused on recent challenges to making RIA a tool to improve policy making: the multiple, interconnected risks that the regulator faces requires broadening the scope of RIAs and CBA. The variety of risks also make it difficult to draw international comparisons (see his books Risk vs Risk, 1995, and The Reality of Precaution, 2011.)
- James Broughel (George Mason U.) presented the Regulatory Report Card, which actually rates "economically significally US RIAs since 2008 by reference to 12 criteria drawn from EO 12866. Results will interest Americans, while the methodology (especially the criteria) should be helpful to all European experts in search of quality RIAs;
- Michael Livermore (NYU) fascinated the audience with his account of how CBA developped in the US, with the shifting appeal to political sides, according to the use lobbies and interest groups could expect to make of the figures, and other political considerations (see also comment on Mike's work on "a new perspective on CBA" in policymaking;
- Alberto Alemanno (HEC Paris) presented some original research, new for most of the audience, into "courts as actors of RIA", with deep insights into the impact of RIAs on policymakers concern for quality and accuracy, in view of possible later repeal of legislation for insufficient evidence base, or ineffective consultation. For more on the topic, see Alberto's blog;
- Liza Bellulo, from the French Competition Authority, presented a useful guide for competition impact assessment of new legislation; English version available from the Authority;
- Elke Ballon, head of the new RIA unit of the European Parliament was sure to interest the audience with her report on the first year of the EP's RIA activities, in connection with EC work, which include screening of EC RIAs, drafting an "initial appraisal" of the Commission report - see April 2013 example - or a detailed assessment on request from an EP committee, producing an IA on substantive amendments to EC proposals. The unit's website will soon be online;

- Joachim Beck (Euro-Institute) introduced a topic which was new to most attendees: "cross-border RIA cooperation" in which he showed that EU lawmakers pursuing economic integration had not sufficiently addressed the issues of cross border regions which represent 40% of the EU territory and 30% of its population;
- Finally, more classicly, the conference was given updates on current RIA and smart regulation developments in the European Commission, the UK and France (with a notable presentation, on a personal basis by an administrator of the French national assembly.)

RIAs in the European Parliament

One of the weaknesses of EU Smart Regulation regularly identified by Council used to be the absence of RIAs on European Parliament (EP) draft legislation or amendments. This may be a thing of the past, since the EP's decision earlier this year to set up a "legislative assessment directorate" within the internal policies department.
According to information in a European Cement Association note, the new directorate will have a staff of 19 headed by a director (see vacancy notice) who has been recruited. It will also look at the potential impact of proposed legislation on individual MS policies. This in-house review of EU legislative proposals was long overdue since the advent of the Lisbon treaty, which gave the EP greater co-decision powers. MEPs would no longer have to rely on the European Commission's impact assessments, but would have their own researched justifications for their initiatives, thereby supporting the parliamentary positions in negotiations with the member states. The new directorate will be responsible for scrutiny of amendments by MEPs, and support the Parliament's role in economic surveillance of national budgetary policies. It will also conduct budgetary impact reviews.
The Parliament has also created an impact supervisory board, composed of 13 MEPs. The board's task is to set out the priorities for impact assessments, and decide how the Parliament will evaluate the impact that proposed EU legislation would have on individual policies in the 27 member states.
For background see file on EP Resolution dated 8 June 2011 on guaranteeing independent impact assessments and 3May 2012 meeting of the Stoiber Group, which noted that the new unit also examines "the cost of non-Europe" in all RIAs, under the term "European added value."
The new unit has already published an example of critical assessment of a Commission RIA, on the issue of the audit market (18 September 2012).

EP updates stance on smart regulation

In July, the Commission on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament issued its "Report on the EC's 18th report on Better Legislation - Application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (2010)", including a motion that updates the EP's position on Better Regulation. According to the explanatory memorandum, which is a particularly interesting document to trace the evolution of Smart Regulation:
"Parliament, together with the other European institutions and the Member States, must now do its part to ensure that the momentum gained is upheld and that activities are stepped up in all relevant areas. There is in particular a dire need for the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making from 2003 to be updated to the current legislative environment created by the Lisbon Treaty, (our emphasis) for instance concerning correlation tables, the practical modalities for legislative procedures and the demarcation between delegated and implementing acts. Action is also needed in the areas of subsidiarity checks by national parliaments and when it comes to impact assessments conducted by the Parliament and the Council. Lastly, adequate follow-up of the functioning of adopted legislation needs to be made, not least in order to gain feed-back to be used for the amendment of legislation identified as possible to ameliorate, but also in order to combat the practice of ‘gold-plating’, i.e. the introduction of additional national requirements not included in a directive, thus creating additional unnecessary burdens for citizens and business. The Commission is foreseen to publish a report on the progress of the smart regulation agenda in the latter part of 2012. Parliament should make sure to remain vigilant in identifying shortcomings and suggesting improvements in this area." All these points are fully developped in the motion (tip from M. Hainque).

Smart Regulation for experts

Following the success of « smart regulation in 1200 words », your blogger updated his 2010 article on the subject, to provide an overview of the development and current achievements of the strategy in the European Union, with a critical assessment based on personal experience in the European Commission and other organisations working on the topic. « Smart Regulation in the European Union » (some 24 pages - 12,500 words) will soon be published in a book about SR experiences in Europe, along with a chapter for each major country and some smaller ones. Updates concern the report of the Stoiber Group report on best practices, the UK November report on smart regulation, the conclusions of Council under Danish presidency, the results of the Action Plan on Administrative Burdens, all reported on this blog in previous posts (see « smart regulation » category which numbers 37 items).
A summary is provided by a previous post in October 2010. Better regulation had not yet achieved its full impact: the simplification effort had not yet truly reduced the perceived overgrowth and complexity of European law, in spite of the claim that the number of legal texts had been reduced. In spite of the few major successes (the VAT reform to introduce electronic invoicing for instance) the cutting red tape program which ends with the year 2012 needs to deliver significant additional measures in a greater number of areas of legislation, like statistics, accounting, environment, etc. All in all, in no way can it be said that better regulation had already reached the objectives set for it by its initial promoters: EU law still gives an impression of complexity and bureaucracy, the decision making process has not been made that much more transparent;
In this context the innovations introduced by smart regulation can be welcome if they do not undermine or slow down the sustained delivery of ongoing better regulation results. The two main changes in SR are 1/ the broadening of the ambition of the strategy to “make markets work for people” which is wider than “simplify the regulatory environment for business”; 2/ the new emphasis on the content of policy and legislation, which must become “smart”, i.e. deliver effectively on the full range of public policy objectives, rather than reducing the volume of legislation and its burden on companies.
This new approach will have to avoid running into some well-known pitfalls. By giving more attention on the content of regulation and requiring more evidence to justify reform, it opens the way for additional bureaucratic prerequisites, running the risk of focusing more on the process, and not enough on the outcome. The shift is not exempt from technical challenges, as the evaluation methods will need to be adjusted to accommodate SR goals. By insisting on the technical evaluation of evidence in support of decision making, SR may dilute the political initiative and further insulate the regulators from the pressure of the stakeholders. These will be some of the challenges facing smart regulation and also the criteria against which to assess its future achievements.

European Parliament endorses smart regulation

An event for us smart regulators : a report on better legislation, subsidiarity and proportionality, and smart regulation was adopted by the European Parliament. Subject to reading the full 22 page report, filed by Conservative MEP Sajjad Karim, the content seems close to that if the  joint report by the UK, DK and NL (March 2010) already reported on this blog.

The report is important and useful in that it sums up the current potential of smart regulation in the evolution of the institutional balance in the European Union, in the context of the Lisbon treaty and EU2020. More forceful burden cutting was necessary to restore European competitiveness, threatened by countries such as India and China says Sajjad. The report and motion were adopted by the EP.

Some of the ideas are excerpted in a declaration on the MEP’s personal site, published yesterday, which makes for easier reading (link pointed out by DT), among which the idea that the EU may still fail to reach its target of reducing administrative burdens by 25% before the end of next year, partly because of national “gold-plating” of EU rules.

Senate and National Assembly disagree on simplification bill (France)

On 29 March, the French Senate discussed in second reading the sixth simplification bill, tabled in August 2009. As already reported here, there is a disagreement between the two chambers on what such a text can include and up to a point how legal simplification should proceed. But they agree that the texts are too numerous and not always consistent, creating complexity for the economic actors. There are also misgivings about the size of the "omnibus:"  this 6th edition already comprised 150 articles when tabled, a figure that reached 200 after first reading in the NA. Following a fiercely critical report by its legal commission, the Senate has repealed 8 articles for not being appropriate for a simplification law, and re-established 10 from the initial draft, which had been deleted by the NA. In coming weeks the two houses will be negotiating a compromise. The items are in general quite arcane in spite of the good explanations on the online dossier, so it is difficult to judge who is right (from a BR point of view). We may however regret that article 8, opening alternatives channels of consultation (called "open" because they rely on internet) has been a victim of the purge. For others, such as the protection of users against "abnormal variations of their water bill" it may appear reasonable to avoid clogging the reform with such minor changes. Another problem is that the legislator may also be too process-oriented, as shown by another litigious item: the reduction of a number of government reports to parliament, which does not have a direct impact on users. So, in summary, watch this space !

EU Consumer rights: a test for BR principles

An updated version of the EU’s Consumer Rights Directive was approved by the European Parliament on 24 March, but MEPs postponed adopting a final position on the new law to buy themselves more time to reach agreement with member states on the most controversial issues (and possibly secure Council approval at first reading). The reform proposal aims to update protection rules, especially for on-line commerce, which are currently spread across four separate directives and pre-date the digital revolution. It is supported by business because it could usher in a EU wide level playing field. Full harmonisation is however difficult as some MS already have stricter rules than the planned common regulations. And it has not been fully established that the new rules would overall reduce administrative burdens. For more, see excellent Euractiv dossier.

Higher profile for EP in EU decision-making

The European Parliament approved on 20 October (in plenary)  the text of  a revised Framework Agreement giving relations with the European Commission a new scope and paving the way for MEPs to have more power in EU decision-making. MEPs recognised the Commission's commitment to giving equal treatment to the Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers. The principle will apply particularly to gaining access to meetings and documentation on legislative and budgetary issues. The Parliament will also get more access to classified and confidential information and will play an enhanced role in the Union's programming: the College of Commissioners will have to meet with leading MEPs before adopting the EU's Annual Work Programme. Moreover, the Parliament will be kept informed of all developments in the EU's international negotiations – particularly those concerning trade deals. MEPs will also be kept abreast of Commission meetings with national experts on EU legislation. According to how these new arrangements are understood and implemented, there will or there will not be progress in the quality of EU law-making.

News from the interinstitutional agreement

6 September 2010:  A report on the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission was presented by MEP Paulo Rangel.  According to the press release , the new inter-institutional agreement reinforces EP powers and raises it to be a political actor on an equal footing with the Council and the Commission: the principle of the division of powers is taking shape in the EU.

With the entry-into-force of the Lisbon Treaty, it had become necessary to revise the Framework Agreement, as it defines the relations between the EU institutions in a period in which the European Parliament has obtained strengthened powers, especially in the legislative process.  The Framework Agreement deals with issues such as the political responsibility of both institutions, the circulation of information between them, the external relations, the enlargement and international agreements, the implementation of the budget, the political and legislative programme of the Commission and the multiannual programme of the Union, the legislative competence and specific implementation powers of the Commission, the control of the application of Community law and the participation of the Committee in the parliamentary works, among others.  The MEP writes: "The powers which are traditionally assigned to the Parliament, based on the principle of the division of powers", and highlighted that the European Parliament is becoming a true Parliament and that evolution "represents not only a repetition of history, since we, in the 21st century, are facing battles of affirmation of the parliaments which already struggled in the 18th and 19th centuries. Therefore, this is of great importance not only for the democratic control of the EU, but also of great interest to political science", underlined Rangel.

For a more balanced analysis of the issue, including Council objections, see Euractiv article. (à suivre)

EP on BR: business as usual

On 9 September 2010, the European Parliament adopted its annual resolution of on better lawmaking, on the basis of the 15th annual report from the Commission pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
This document is useful as a recapitulation of current issues and trends, but does not include any new insights, and does not show the EP as particularly innovative. Actually, by using the same concepts as in previous years (there is no mention of smart regulation), and not volunteering any new development, the report, which follows a predetermined format, looks somewhat conservative, or at least prudent, as for instance its comment on alternatives to legislation
(the EP) “46. Warns against abandoning necessary legislation in favour of self-regulation or co-regulation or any other non-legislative measure; believes that the consequences of such choices should be subject to careful examination in each case, in accordance with Treaty law and the roles of the individual institutions;
47. Stresses, at the same time, that soft law should be applied with the greatest of care and on a duly justified basis, without undermining legal certainty and the clarity of existing legislation, and after consultation of Parliament as underlined in its resolution on a revised Framework Agreement” No progress is made on how the Parliament would examine impacts of substantive amendments to Commission proposals.
There are, however, some encouraging ideas:
- An invitation to the Commission to clarify the content of the smart regulation agenda;
- Support to the idea that Commission impact assessments should be reviewed by an independent body;
- An invitation to the Commission to provide a two to four page summary of its impact assessments.

European Parliament votes for simpler food labelling

On 16 June, the EP voted in plenary on a 2008 Commission proposal for new legislation on providing food information to consumers. The proposal combines existing rules on food labelling and nutritional information into one regulation. The aim is to make food labels clearer and more relevant to consumers, without introducing excessive labelling costs for the packaging industry. The regulation includes specific requirements for displaying information on the front of packaging. A significant part of the discussion centrered around "traffic-light" labelling supposed to provide dietary information. It seems that the some balance has been struck, in the new legislation, between the need to inform consumers, without imposing unnecessary and often illegible labels on food packages, a permanent challenge for quality regulation. Some countries, such as the Netherlands, do not consider third party labelling as administrative burdens. For background information, see Euractiv dossier.

E-invoicing reform approaching EU decision

The European Commission on 28 January 2009 adopted a proposal COM(2009)21 to change the VAT Directive 2006/112/EC (from 28 November 2006) with respect to invoicing rules. The main objectives are to reduce burdens on business, increase the use of e-Invoicing, support small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and help Member States tackle fraud. This is by far the most promising item in the Commission's programme to slash burdens on business: the maximum mid-term reduction potential is estimated at € 18.4 billion if all businesses send all their invoices electronically.In the European Parliament, the proposal has been examined by the Legal Affairs Committee: see committee report dated 9 March. Refer to "Procedure file" on Parliament site for further steps towards adoption of the opinion.

16 March: The ECOFIN council agreed a general approach on the draft directive - including the important e-invoicing proposal - and it will be adopted formally in a coming Council (once the opinion of the Parliament has been delivered). See ECOFIN outcome of proceedings for details.

Background material:

• Full independent scrutiny of the "history" of e-invoicing (blog);
• Euractiv background note.

EP harnesses BR principles to improve lawmaking

Two recent documents give substance to the Parliament's commitment to BR.

1/ EP resolution on new EP-COM framework agreement

The European Parliament and the European Commission are currently discussing a new framework agreement between the two institutions, which is meant to update and improve working arrangements between them and enhance the quality of EU law.

The resolution adopted on 9 February 2010  sums up the key elements of the future agreement as the EP sees it, to include the following demands:

• Equal treatment for Parliament and the Council of Ministers in access to meetings and information;
• Follow up by Commission on EP legislative initiative requests;
• Cooperation between EP and COM on handling citizens' initiatives;
• Detailed review of Better Law-Making Inter-institutional Agreement;
• Improvement of the accountability of the executive by revised working arrangements;
• Better information of EP in international negotiations (in accordance with Lisbon);
• Improved arrangements for programming legislative work.

 See Euractiv comment.

2/ Cooperation in Better Lawmaking

In the meantime, the Committee on Legal Affairs discussed in March a draft report on better lawmaking (on the basis of the Commisison's 15th annual report on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality) (2009/2142(INI)). The EP draft report takes into consideration the changes introduced by the Lisbon treaty that replaced comitology by separating delegating and implementing measures, and introduced a European citizens' initiative and expresses a number of views, among which:

• "welcomes the closer involvement of national parliaments in the process of creating European law and particularly in the process of monitoring compliance of legislative proposals with the principles of subsidiarity";
• "undertakes to continue assessing the impact of amendments introduced to the Commission's proposals";
• "calls on the Commission to define precisely the 'smart regulation' agenda";
• The draft report also contains detailed recommendations on the future of administrative burden measurement and reduction at EU level.

For background, see Commission site on BR:  and "relations with other institutions and bodies."  The most recent Commission report on better lawmaking is also on-line.

European Parliament supports cutting red tape for small companies

Very small companies could be exempted from having to draw up annual accounts, after MEPs approved changes to accounting obligations in EU law. It would be up to each Member State to grant such exemptions, depending on the impact the directive would have in that country. Companies would in any case still have to keep records of their business transactions and financial situation. If all Member States were to exempt micro companies and did not impose additional requirements, the proposal could save an estimated at €6.3 billion. In spite of this vote, the Commission proposal remains blocked in the Council.
See European Parliament press release