The interinstitutional agreement (IIA) on better regulation is a political commitment by Council, Parliament and Commission to comply with the principles of better regulation set out therein. The document had been under discussion between the three institutions since summer 2015. Commission and Council have already endorsed the agreements, the Parliament still has to confirm the IIA formally. From the viewpoint of stakeholders, a few important elements have been deleted or watered down.
Nevertheless, it is welcome that overall it has been possible to agree solid rules on compliance with the principles of better regulation. However, the institutions and the Member States now have the task of applying the content consistently and implementing it within their own structures.
It has been agreed that there should in future be stronger coordination of the Commission with the Council and the Parliament on the annual work programme and on the interinstitutional programme planning. Precise timetables for legislative acts as well as their legal basis should also be a component of the work programme in order to enable stakeholders to plan better and create a clearer overview. It will be clarified that impact assessments should be an instrument on the basis of which substantiated policy decisions can be reached. Council and Parliament undertake to carry out impact assessments on substantive amendments at their own discretion. What is meant by “substantive” is determined by the institution in question itself. On its own initiative, the Commission can supplement its impact assessments to take account of the stage reached in the legislative procedure. But impact assessments should not lead to any delay in the legislative procedure or be a precondition for amendment proposals.
It is positive that express reference is made to the consequences for competitiveness and that digital aspects will in future be taken into consideration. It is also positive that the special nature of social partner agreements at EU level is recognised. However, one point of criticism is that the relationship of public consultations or stakeholder consultations on the one side and social partner consultations regulated under European law on the other side should be differentiated more clearly. It is considerably to be regretted that the proposal for establishment of an independent body for all three institutions tasked with quality control of changes to legislative proposals in the legislative procedure has been deleted. Furthermore there is no external verification of impact assessments by the institutions and therefore the coherence of a legislative act in the legislative procedure cannot be ensured.
The agreement also regulates a comprehensive involvement of stakeholders in consultations. Even if this obligation is broadly welcome, practice since summer 2015 already reveals a negative trend. There is still no clear reference to the 2002 minimum standards for consultations. Consequently, a greater weighting of input from representative organisations as compared with individual opinions is not guaranteed. Accordingly, it is increasingly the case that there is high participation in consultations with the submission of identically worded standard responses which do not add any perceptible value.
The issue of gold-plating is also addressed for the first time. Without the term being used, Member States are only expected to report to the Commission everything that is to be added at national level in the framework of transposing EU law. As a result, the incentive for Member States to avoid gold-plating is not very strong (this often happens at regional and local level).
The REFIT platform decided on May 2015 has also met for the first time, on 29 January. Representatives from 28 Member States and a total of 20 stakeholders are supposed to support the Commission in the analysis of proposals for cutting red tape with their expertise. The results of the work then flow into the Commission’s work programme for the coming year. The views of business are represented by BUSINESSEUROPE.
BDI and BDA also continue to contribute actively on the theme of better regulation. If the instruments available in the better regulation package are applied consistently and are implemented in the EU institutions and Member States, they will help to create streamlined and efficient provisions for the European single market. Nevertheless, the agreements reached must not remain lip service.
