House of Lords - European Union - Minutes of Evidence

Select Committee on European Union Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (incorporating contributions from BERR, Defra, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice)

1. Where do the ideas which trigger work towards EU legislation come from?

1.1 The European Commission enjoys the "right of initiative" and for the most part drafts and formally proposes legislation. However, it is the role of the European Council to define "the general political guidelines" (Article 4 TEU—see Annex A (not printed with this Report)) underpinning EU action. For example, the European Council plays a leading role in Justice and Home Affairs (establishing the five-year programmes at Tampere and The Hague—see JHA box), and this area is a good example of the concerted efforts over the last ten years to improve the functioning of the EU—JHA policy can be said to have been piecemeal up until the introduction of strategic European programmes in 1999. The Government has been strongly supportive of the raft of reforms undertaken by the Barroso Commission across the board, cutting red tape, simplifying and modernising legislation, and—most pertinent to this inquiry—the subjection of EU draft legislation to an impact assessment process.

1.2 Though this aspect of the European Council's role is not reflected in the current Treaties, it will be after entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (Article 68 TFEU will provide for the European Council to "define the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning").

Conclusions of the meeting of the European Council in Tampere in 1999 (the Tampere Conclusions), led to a five year Justice and Home Affairs work programme. The UK fed into this following a series of cross-Whitehall meetings looking at what we did and did not want in the way of EU legislation in this area. A work programme resulted with which the UK Government was generally satisfied. Among other things, it was agreed that the cornerstone of action in the area of judicial co-operation should be mutual recognition. The Commission devised an action plan and scoreboard to ensure delivery of the programme. The UK also secured what we wanted in the successor to Tampere, the Hague Programme, through active participation.

The UK is currently actively engaged in negotiations on the post-Hague Programme, the content and structure of which is being discussed in the Future Group on Home Affairs and the Future Group on Justice.

Multi-annual strategies and annual work plans

1.2 Upon entering into office, the five-year strategic objectives for the Commission are established. These take into account both those European Parliamentary debates in the run up to its nomination and existing multi-annual programmes of upcoming Presidencies, and existing Work Programmes and have to be agreed upon by the Commission, Council and European Parliament.

1.3 The Commission College holds annual orientation debates to define the priorities and strategic objectives of the Commission for the following year. Conclusions are conveyed to the services, which in turn make proposals to convert College orientations into specific proposals and draft legislation or Communications (See Annex C).

1.4 The Commission's rules of procedure[1] provide that the Commission defines annual priorities and adopts a work programme for each year. There is structured dialogue between the Commission, Council and EP on the Commission's annual policy strategy which then determines the work programme for the following year.

Other actors

1.5 The Council of Ministers can ask the Commission to undertake studies or propose legislation (Article 208 TEC—see Annex A (not printed with this Report)). The increasing number of Council meetings can be said to have increased its influence in this regard, and enables the Union to legislate quickly in reaction to major events (such as 9/11).

1.6 Aside from the influence they can exert through the Council, Member States can make proposals in second and third pillar areas and may also have success in influencing Commission policy in first pillar areas, with recent UK successes including Aviation Emissions, Climate Change, and Small Claims.

The first EU law covering classification and labelling of chemicals was introduced in 1967. In the late 1990s concerns surfaced that this was inadequate, largely because most chamicals on the EU market were not required to be accompanied by basic safety information. EU Ministers, meeting informally in Chester in 1998, encouraged the European Commission to review EU chemicals legislation and, if appropriate, propose a new EU-wide system. This eventually led to a Commission proposal for the REACH Regulation (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) in 2003 (COM (2003) 644), which was eventually adopted by the Council and the European Parliament in 2006 (regulation 2006/1907).

1.7 The European Parliament, though not enjoying a right of initiative, still exerts influence on Commission policy making, and is empowered by Treaty (Art 192 TEC—see Annex A (not printed with this Report)) to ask the Commission to propose legislation. The Commission will also often undertake studies as proposed by the EP. The EP's "hearings" for new Commissioners-designate may have an important bearing on the policies that Commissioners may pursue in office.

1.8 Under President Barroso the Commission has also tended to ensure it is perceived to take EP requests seriously and strong majorities in the Parliament can force an agenda. One recent example of this has been on toy safety where a large majority of MEPs pressed the Commission, through a joint resolution in September 2007[2] to update existing rules in this area following a number of high profile cases of product recalls. This led to a proposal[3] for a revision of the Toys Directive being presented to the Council and EP by the Commission on 25 January this year.

1.9 The Commission may also be influenced by the judgments of the European Court of Justice on existing legislation, for instance the Waste Framework Directive (See paragraph 9 of Annex C).

1.10 Pressure from other parties can also bear influence on the conception of legislation. Individuals, or single entities may have little influence, but a critical mass of public opinion (as evidenced by opinion polls and the Eurobarometer), lobbying by NGO coalitions and other interested bodies can be effective in influencing the Commission's work. One recent example of this is the lobbying by national telecom regulators (the European Regulators Group) on the issue of international roaming services, and the Commission's subsequent development of legislation[4] to reduce the high costs of cross-border mobile telephony. The EU Roaming Regulation[5] came in to force on 30 June 2007, requiring mobile operators to make available, and actively offer, a Eurotariff to their customers by 30 July 2007.

2. From concept to proposals for legislation: How ideas are developed

2.1 The Commission's annual policy strategies set out the political priorities for the year to come and how these will be taken forward (A Memorandum of Understanding on the 2009 APS was recently sent to the House, and can be found at Annex D (not printed with this Report)). A Westminster Hall debate on the APS will be held on June 12). The institutions engage in a structured dialogue and each Commissioner has a discussion with the relevant parliamentary committee. A stocktaking document is produced and used to translate policy strategy into the Commission work programme: a concrete action plan and set of deliverables.

2.2 The Commission's annual work programme translates the annual policy strategy[6] into policy objectives and an operational programme of decisions to be adopted by the Commission. It sets out major political priorities and identifies legislative initiatives, executive and other acts that the Commission intends to adopt for the realisation of these priorities.

2.3 For example, the work programme for 2007[7] centres around the four strategic objectives set out by the Barroso Commission at the start of its mandate: prosperity, solidarity, security and external responsibility. In addition, the Commission commits to develop a series of priority initiatives, to be adopted over the next 12 to 18 months depending on the depth and intensity of preparation needed to meet the quality standards of better regulation. Each initiative will be supported by a comprehensive assessment of its likely impacts. The Work programme for 2007 also contains a list of simplification initiatives as well as a number of proposals dating from 2004 that the Commission has the intention to withdraw.

2.4 More detailed programming and monitoring of Commission work takes the form of a "forward programming[8]" document and an execution report[9]. Both contain legislative proposals to other EU institutions, major non-legislative acts and acts, selected by the Commission, that are likely to be of interest to other EU institutions and to the general public. They are Commission working documents and only exist in the original version (part English and part French). Both documents are updated monthly.

2.5 The Commission has a legal obligation (Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality Article 9—see Annex A (not printed with this Report)) to consult widely before proposing legislation. This is borne out by the Commission's own minimum standards for consultation (COM(2002)704—Annex E (not printed with this Report)), though these do not provide a uniform approach, nor would we necessarily want them to—Directorates General retaining flexibility to vary practices depending on the strength and scope of lobbying and the nature of the policy area in question.

2.6 The 2003 Inter-institutional agreement on better lawmaking[10] also states that:

"During the period preceding the submission of legislative proposals, the Commission will, having informed the European Parliament and the Council, conduct the widest possible consultations, the results of which will be made public. In certain cases, where the Commission deems it appropriate the Commission may submit a pre-legislative consultation document on which the European Parliament and the Council may choose to deliver an opinion."

2.7 Each Directorate-General develops an annual management plan to describe how departments plan their activities and how they contribute to the priorities set by the Commission. Since the introduction of activity-based management, these plans have to set clear, specific, measurable and verifiable objectives for each activity as well as indicators for the monitoring and reporting on the progress made and the impact of the activities to the EU citizens.

2.8 Where the Commission concludes that EU legislation is needed, it drafts a proposal that it believes will deal with the problem effectively and satisfy the widest possible range of interests. To get the technical details right the Commission consults experts through various committees and groups via open forums, seminars, conferences, expert committees (of national experts), consultative committees (representatives of European associations and national groups), and High-level groups and working parties. (See Annex B—IPCC case study)

2.9 The Commission also takes account of the views of NGOs and Member States and the degree of resistance to potential proposals into account. The Commission is in regular contact with a wide range of interest groups and with the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. It also seeks the opinions of national parliaments and governments.

2.10 The Commission formally presents consultation documents to the Council of Ministers in the form of Green Papers, White Papers and other general Communications. Commission Green Papers on specific policy areas are addressed to interested parties—organisations and individuals—who are invited to participate in a process of public discussion, consultation and debate. In some cases they provide an impetus for subsequent legislation.

2.11 White papers launch a consultation process at European level, presenting an official set of proposals in specific policy areas, and are used as vehicles for their development.

2.12 Commission consultation documents are subject to scrutiny in the UK by the Parliamentary scrutiny committees and the Government values their input into the consultation process. For example, regarding the Commission's 2005 Green Paper on "Improving the mental health of the population"[11], The Lords 2007 EU Committee annual report[12] stated that "The Sub-Committee later received indications from the Commission that the Report influenced the way in which the proposals for action, following the Green Paper consultation, were drawn up". And in February 2008, during the debate on the Government's proposals for reform of the EU scrutiny process in the House of Commons, the Deputy Leader announced that the Government would alert the Scrutiny Committees of Commission consultation exercises in which it was involved at an early stage. This also covers important consultations in which it is involved that are not being taken forward through documents submitted to the Council of Ministers so that the Committees can decide whether they wish to follow and contribute to the consultations.

3. The quality of proposals: how can the initiation process be improved?

3.1 The Commission has introduced several better regulation processes analogous to those used by the UK Government, including impact assessment, consultation, administrative burden measurement and simplification (see Annex F—A summary of Better Regulation). As the European Commission refines the use of these tools, the UK Government expects that the quality of Commission proposals will improve accordingly. Since 2003 all items on its Annual and Legislative Work Programme have been subject to an impact assessment process in which the social, environmental and economic impacts of its proposals should be anticipated. Its guidelines, which were revised in 2005[13], are fairly comprehensive. However, their application has varied across the Commission services and from one proposal to another.

3.2 In November 2006, Commission President Barroso set up an Impact Assessment Board to create greater internal quality control to address this issue. The Board consists of senior Commission officials from different Directorates-General acting in a personal capacity, working directly to the Commission President. Their role is to scrutinise impact assessments and challenge their authors to improve them when they do not meet with the Commission's own guidelines. Their opinions are published on the Commission's website. There is some evidence that the Board's work is making a positive impact—examples of proposals that have been rejected on the basis of cost/benefit analysis include those on EU witness protection and voting rights for share holders (one share one vote). Although the Board has made a good start, it will need to increase its coverage, so that it scrutinises all significant legislative proposals coming from the Commission, not just those which appear on the Annual Work Programme.

3.3 An independent evaluation[14] of the Commission's impact assessment system carried out in 2007 highlighted some of the problems with the existing system. Some of its key findings were that too often Commission impact assessments are started too late in the policy development process for their findings to be taken into account fully; quantification needs to be improved and the scope of what is subject to impact assessment should be expanded to bring in major comitology proposals. The Government agrees with these conclusions. In addition, the Government considers it essential that Commission impact assessments include an ex ante assessment of the anticipated scale of administrative burdens which new proposals are likely to impose. Although the Commission has committed to doing this, it is not being done in many cases. This issue has become increasingly pressing since Heads of State across the EU set a target to reduce administrative burdens stemming from EU legislation by 25 per cent by 2012.[15] In response to the independent evaluation, the Commission is currently redrafting its guidelines and the Government will be actively feeding into this process.

3.4 Effective consultation is a crucial element of good policy-making. It is essential for creating evidence-based, workable proposals. The UK Government believes that the minimum standards for consultation set out in the Commission Communication of December 2002 on "General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties" (Annex E (not printed with this Report)) have played a useful role. In the majority of circumstances the Commission's services have complied with the standards; new approaches have been pioneered; and the Your Voice website has rendered access to Commission consultations much easier for national and regional administrations, industry, non-governmental organisations and EU citizens alike.

3.5 Over the last two years the Commission has made considerable efforts to hear and respond to the views of relevant stakeholders. The Government has received feedback from stakeholders in the financial services and automotive sectors that the Commission has developed and administered consultations very well, seeking views effectively both from regulators and from businesses.

3.6 We welcome the increased use of roadmaps[16] for each item in the Commission's annual Work Programme. These represent a potentially powerful way to inform stakeholders of key policy issues, the options for addressing these issues and the activities to take these forward, including timings for consultations, allowing stakeholders to engage early. High quality and widely and easily available roadmaps for all entries in the Work Programme[17] will contribute considerably to EU transparency.

3.7 Regarding formal consultations, the UK Government agrees with the European Commission's statement in the Better Lawmaking Report 2005[18] that there is room for improvement in terms of the feedback that the Commission gives to respondents as to how their views have, or indeed have not and why not, affected the final regulatory proposal. Other areas where improvements are required, include awareness of the minimum standards among Commission officials, scope of applicability, the duration of consultation exercises, timing and frequency of consultation, and efforts to engage with a wide and diverse range of stakeholders, in particular Europe's small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The Government believes that business representative organisations need time to assess the relevance of a consultation to their members, consult them, analyse their responses, build alliances and submit views, particularly when potentially trying to contact 23 million businesses in 27 member states. Consideration should be given to extending the minimum consultation period. This is especially important for small businesses which do not have the resources to respond to consultations in such a short timeframe.

3.8 Overall the government's view is that the quality of proposals issuing from the Commission is variable, but has improved significantly in recent years. Some parts of the Commission are better than others in following better regulation principles. For example DG Environment has worked on developing robust impact assessment tools to explore options for tackling air pollution and climate change; and DG Agriculture have set up an expert group on simplification, with Member States and stakeholders meeting to share best practice, and have created a single Common Market Organisation (Single CMO[19]) for agricultural products that has replaced the 21 separate CMOs that existed previously, reducing the volume of EC legislation and improving transparency for producers and processors. We will continue to work closely with the Commission on better regulation, both horizontally and with regard to particular concerns about specific pieces of legislation.

Annex B

CASE STUDY 1—INTEGRATED POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL

1. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) applies to about 45,000 industrial installations in the EU (about 4,000 in the UK), ranging from refineries to intensive pig farms. It requires each installation to have a permit containing emission limit values and other conditions based on the application of best available technique (BAT) and set to minimise emissions of pollutants likely to be emitted in significant quantities. Permit conditions also have to address energy efficiency, waste minimisation, prevention of accidental emissions, and site restoration.

2. In November 2005, the Commission adopted its first report on the implementation of the IPPC Directive[20] and this launched a review. However, the possibility of review had been mentioned in a Communication in 2003[21] to which the UK Government responded in September 2003. Defra and EC officials subsequently discussed this response informally. The Commission-chaired IPPC Experts Group had provided a roughly annual forum for discussion of possible revisions, and an EC working group initiated on developing IPPC guidance—with significant UK encouragement and input—provided further impetus. A "better regulation" conference in October 2004 also generated some ideas, as a Dutch initiative commencing in late 2002 in which three EU-wide workshop sessions were held on the theme of "Exploring New Approaches" ("ENAP") to regulation of industrial installations. Indeed, by the time of another EU-wide conference held in Dresden in September 2005 there was already a wealth of views about the need for and form of review, of not only the IPPC Directive itself but also of its relatives on large combustion plants, waste incineration and solvents.

3. But in all of this there was general agreement that the IPPC Directive is fundamentally sound and not in need of major overhaul. That was reflected in the Commission's statement that the general objective of the review was "to evaluate the scope to improve the functioning of the Directive and its interaction with other legislation, in particular related to industrial emissions, while not altering the main underlying principles and the level of ambition set in the Directive".

4. When it launched the review, the Commission set up and chaired an "IPPC Review Advisory Group", comprising a single representative of each of the Member States (a Defra official was the UK representative) and of several European industry associations. The European Environmental Bureau represented the environmental NGO perspective.

5. A key role of the Advisory Group was to advise on the conduct of several consultancy studies, which the Commission initiated at the end of 2005 and in 2006. Besides commenting upon the general direction of these studies, Advisory Group members were asked to comment upon draft questionnaires prepared by the consultants, to respond themselves to the finalised questionnaires, and to suggest "case study" industrial installations. The Commission conducted a commendably "open" approach to the whole process, placing all the documents these studies generated on its "Circa" web site[22].

6. Within the UK, Defra used the "IPPC Sounding Board" to disseminate information and information requests concerning the Review. The Sounding Board comprises representatives of some 20 UK industry associations, with another 40 or so receiving papers. Representatives of the Environment Agency, BERR and the Devolved Administrations and their regulators also attend the Sounding Board meetings[23]. The Sounding Board had been set up during the negotiation of the current IPPC Directive. It was revivified in 2002 and has provided throughout that time the principal means of disseminating information and seeking views on IPPC issues in the UK.

7. In April 2007 the European Commission opened a two-month internet consultation on various "actions which could be taken at EU level to ensure a high level of environmental protection through the prevention and control of industrial emissions". The UK Government responded, drawing upon views from the IPPC Sounding Board. During the consultation period, the Commission held a "public hearing" in Brussels at which views could be expressed, although this was not an altogether successful event, with too much time being taken in presentations leaving insufficient time for discussions[24]. There was also a discussion at the "Environmental Policy Review Group" meeting in Brussels on 23 April 2007. This was a "Chatham House rule" meeting of environment Directors-General from Member State governments.

8. After the closure of the internet consultation in June 2007, the UK continued to submit ideas on an official to official basis Commission officials as they worked to conclude the review. In October 2007 the inter-service consultation version of the proposed revision circulated around Europe through ENDS. Although the UK did not comment upon this "leaked" document, Defra officials verbally put several points arising to Commission officials and it became clear that the Commission received other representations, any or all of which may have been influential upon the final proposal.

9. The review culminated on 21 December 2007 with the publication of a Commission Communication[25] accompanying the Commission's proposal for a Directive on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control).

Annex C

CASE STUDY 2—6TH ENVIRONMENT ACTION PROGRAMME AND WASTE FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

1. Multi-annual strategies can be very effective at setting the agenda for the creation of legislative proposals, an example of which is the 6th Environment Action Programme (6th EAP). The 6th EAP is a decision of the Council and the European Parliament, adopted in July 2002, which sets out the framework for environmental policy-making in the EU up to 2012, outlining the actions that need to be taken to achieve them.

2. The current revision of the Waste Framework Directive[26] ("the WFD") originates from the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme[27]. The 6th EAP provided that its objectives were to be pursued by means of a series of priority actions including (a) developing measures on waste prevention and management, (b) developing a thematic strategy on waste recycling and (c) developing or revising the legislation on wastes.

3. The European Commission's first step in the fulfilment of these actions was the adoption in May 2003 of a Communication "Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste" which was the subject of an EU-wide consultation. The Commission subsequently held a series of meetings with Member States and stakeholders; and consulted by means of questionnaires on the development of the Strategy, the associated legislation and an Impact Assessment. A more detailed explanation of this preparatory work is provided on the Commission's website at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/strategy_prep.htm.

4. In December 2005 the European Commission published (a) A Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste ("the Waste Thematic Strategy") and (b) proposals for associated legislation comprising (i) a revision of the WFD, (ii) the repeal of the Waste Oils Directive[28] and (iii) the repeal and integration of the Hazardous Waste Directive[29] into the revised WFD.

5. Explanatory Memoranda on the Waste Thematic Strategy and the revised WFD were submitted to Parliament on 18 January 2006. These confirmed that the UK welcomed the simplification of EU legislation proposed by the Commission but had reservations about several other aspects of the Commission's proposed revision of the WFD. The UK considered that the implications of several of the Commission's proposals had not been fully addressed in their Impact Assessment; and that the Commission had not made an evidence-based case for the proposed imposition of more prescriptive EU-wide standards for waste management.

6. The Minister for Climate Change, Biodiversity and Waste (Joan Ruddock) wrote to the Chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union (Lord Grenfell) on 14 July 2007 to inform him that the Environment Council had reached Political Agreement on the dossier on 28 June 2007. In doing so, the Minister confirmed that the text of the revised WFD which was the subject of Political Agreement incorporated a number of changes to the Commission's proposal which were considered to be beneficial to the UK.

7. Judgments by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the existing WFD were a factor in relation to some aspects of both the Commission's proposal and the text adopted by the Council in its Common Position (December 2007). For example, ECJ judgments on the distinction between waste disposal and waste recovery operations influenced the Commission's and the Council's proposed definitions of "recovery" and the reclassification from waste disposal operations to waste recovery operations of energy efficient municipal waste incinerators; and ECJ judgments on the definition of waste are reflected in the Council's incorporation of provisions on by-products as non-waste.

Annex F

SUMMARY OF EU BETTER REGULATION

— The UK Government is committed to reducing the unnecessary burdens on business, charities and the voluntary sector arising from EU directives and regulations. We are seeking to enshrine the principles of Better Regulation—ie proportionality, accountability, consistency, transparency and targeting—across the work of the EU institutions.

— Our aim is not to reduce social and environmental protections through deregulation, but to get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy which stifles European business and damages the EU's reputation with the public, and to remove, recast or modify outdated policies and laws that no longer serve their purpose.

— With the strong support of the UK government, the current European Commission has shown real commitment to improve the quality of European regulation. Significant progress has been made:

— An EU-wide commitment to cut red tape resulting from EU law was agreed by Heads of Government in March 2007. This is now been developed into a five year programme aimed at saving businesses across the EU £100 billion by 2012 through rationalising rules that generate paperwork. However, we continue to press for this work to be more ambitious—we believe that the Commission should clarify that the 25 per cent admin burdens target is an ongoing reduction in the stock and flow of EU regulation ie that is a net 25 per cent reduction in administrative burdens and therefore we need an annual scorecard produced by the Commission to monitor progress towards this target.

— New EU draft legislation is now subject to an impact assessment process. Since 2003 284 impact assessments have been completed by the European Commission. Examples of proposals that have been rejected on the basis of cost/benefit analysis include an EU witness protection law and a new law on voting rights for share holders (one share one vote). As welcome as the work on impact assessment is, more can be done to increase the quality and the coverage of impact assessment. All policies with a significant impact on business should be screened by the Impact Assessment Board. Also the Commission should do more to quantify (and ideally monetise) costs and benefits—and also do more to identify costs and benefits at national level.

— The European Commission now has a Simplification Rolling Programme to simplify and modernise existing EU legislation. The Commission has already proposed or adopted 92 simplification measures, and will present 45 new measures in 2008. Examples include: simpler packaging rules, as pre-packaging requirements on some 70 consumer products have been repealed; simplified rules to register and sell motor vehicles in the EU while maintaining safety standards; and a more efficient and competitive payments market to make cross-border financial payments as easy, cheap and secure as payments within a Member State. This simplification programme should be accelerated and the Commission should introduce more robust systems to ensure that simplification proposals are radical and boost EU competitiveness.

Our current priorities include getting the best possible results out of all three of these initiatives—and making sure that the other EU institutions play their part:

— One area of concern is the lack of robust impact assessment in the Council of Ministers and European Parliament to carry out impact assessments on their substantive amendments to Commission proposals. European Parliament committees have been allocated budgets to employ consultants to undertake impact assessments on their behalf and are starting to make use of these—however work in the Council is less advanced.

But we also believe more can be done to embed better regulation in other areas. Some concrete proposals including:

— EU Common Commencement Dates—the UK has already adopted this idea for domestic regulations and business like it, as it cuts down horizon scanning, provides certainty, saves them money, improves implementation and we think it would work at EU level. There would be clear advantages for business if there could be greater consistency over implementation deadlines—perhaps matching Presidency terms eg 1 January and 1 July.

— Embedding the "Think Small First Principle" into the Commissions Impact Assessment process—a small business filter could be built into the policy development process so that all new and amended legislation affecting business is assessed by the Commission. This would help to identify impacts and any unintended consequences on small businesses with a view to introducing exemptions and/or thresholds.

— Exemptions and/or thresholds—thought could be given to how a presumption of exemptions and/or thresholds for micro and small businesses in all new and amended legislation could be embedded (eg in the impact assessment). This would require robust evidence to justify their inclusion in a proposal. As a first step, the Commission could consider undertaking a specific screening of the acquis from a small business perspective and to introduce exemptions from administrative requirements wherever possible.

— Completing Statistical Returns—this can be time consuming and costly for small businesses. To help alleviate this burden, coverage of Intrastat could be removed as far as possible from as many small businesses as possible within its scope or alternatively, if a small business is sampled, it is exempt from any further requirements for three years.

— Extending Consultation Periods for business related consultations—Business representative organisations that are invited by the Commission to submit views on new and amended policy, need time to assess the relevance of a consultation to their members, consult them, analyse their responses, build alliances and submit views to the Commission. The current consultation period of eight weeks is insufficient when you are potentially trying to contact 23 million businesses in 27 member states. Consideration should be given to extending the period to a minimum of 16 weeks to give them adequate time to distribute, collect and analyse members' views.

The UK also actively engages with other European countries to share best practice and learn lessons from abroad, for example, by active participation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). We also work together with other countries with advanced programmes in place for regulatory reform: for examples of this information exchange see http://www.administrative-burdens.com.

As well as looking at the development of EU law in Brussels, the Better Regulation Executive also looks at implementation of EU law in the UK. In 2005 the Chancellor asked Lord Davidson QC to review the stock of EU-sourced legislation in the UK and identify measures where unnecessary regulatory burdens could be reduced or the system simplified. The Government accepted the recommendations in full in December 2006.

The Report identified ten areas of legislation, including consumer sales, financial services, food hygiene training, transport and waste, and made specific recommendations to reduce the unnecessary burdens. All of these are either implemented or subject to more detailed consultation with affected parties. Further generic recommendations to spread best practice in the implementation of European legislation across departments and regulators have been incorporated to guidance for officials on how to implement EU law published in September 2007.

http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/docs/forward_programming_2008.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/docs/clwp2007_roadmap_strategic_initiatives.pdf