“Better Regulation” in the sense of deregulation and fewer laws has become a Europe-wide trend. Complicated administrative regulations, but also safety standards are increasingly regarded as inhibiting growth for the economy and especially for SMEs. The European Commission has also jumped on the band waggon and presented on 19 May 2015 a comprehensive package on the subject of “Better Regulation in the EU”. However, it is to be feared that based on the programme important regulations in the area of social, environmental and consumer protection standards will come under scrutiny and that, using the argument of reducing bureaucracy further, legislation in these areas will be blocked. This topical subject matter was debated by Bernhard Achitz, Secretary General of the Austrian Trade Union Federation (ÖGB) and MEPs Richard Corbett, Fabio De Masi and Claude Turmes as well as Gabriele Bischoff, President of the Workers’ Group in the EESC.

Achitz: Legislation must not be allowed to only take place to benefit companies

At the start of the discussion, Bernhard Achitz warned that the Commission's idea of “Better Regulation” does not automatically present better laws. “Indeed many of rules called into question originate from the sector of the worker and health protection. Companies should not be allowed to be the sole beneficiaries of EU legislation. “He who has the money makes the rules” could not be the leitmotif for Better Regulation.

Commission wants to expand power with new Interinstitutional Agreement

One part of the “Better Regulation” Package from 19 May 2015 is the proposal by the Commission for a new Interinstitutional Agreement (IIV) on Better Regulation. In it, the Commission plans to further formalise the legislative process. In future, it should become more difficult to deviate from Commission proposals. Any amendments by Council or European Parliament shall again be evaluated by a bureaucratic committee. At the centre of this so-called impact assessment are once again the economic burdens for small and medium-sized enterprises. This proposal was widely rejected by the MEPs represented on the podium. Fabio De Masi (GUE) was in particular critical of the tool of impact assessment: “Impact assessment does not measure the “externalised costs” of a lack of regulation, but only the costs, which companies incur, when regulations are made. For example, externalised costs for the society include environmental damage or financial crises, which, however, are ignored.” Gabriele Bischoff also made a critical comment: “We are in a process of depoliticisation. That is why the Better Regulation agenda is particularly dangerous right now. It is a technocratic process, which will continue to frustrate Europe’s citizens; it will not restore the necessary trust in the EU. We should discuss Better Regulation as a political and not as a purely technical subject.”

Better Regulation Watchdog

The work of the “Better Regulation Watchdog” was also presented during the course of the event. This information network was launched on the initiative of AK, ÖGB and UNI Europa to be able to better pursue the process of “Better Regulation”. The Better Regulation Watchdog currently has over 60 support organisations. Most of them are trade unions, represented in Brussels (German Federation of Trade Unions DGB, ETUC, Finnish trade unions, IndustriAll, etc.) or NGOs (BEUC, Friend of the Earth, Finance Watch). New members are always welcome: http://www.betterregwatch.eu/

Further Information:

Pictures of the event

Statement EESC

Letter to Frans Timmermans, Vice-President of the European Commission