Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Report of the Commission on the SLIM Pilot Project - Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market` (97/C 206/04)

On 24 July 1996, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned report.

The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work, adopted its opinion on 4 April 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Noordwal.

At its 345th plenary session (meeting of 23 April 1997) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 117 votes to one with three abstentions.

1. Introduction

One of the most pressing of the Community's list of commitments is to reduce the burden of superfluous regulation which impedes the operation of the Single Market. The aim of the SLIM initiative (Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market) is to identify ways in which, without endangering the necessary protection of the citizen, Single Market legislation could be simplified and could also stimulate growth and job creation as part of the Confidence Pact for Employment.

1.1. Definition and scope of the SLIM pilot project

1.1.1. The guiding principles for the SLIM project are:

- simplification should be targeted on a few sectors;

- business and other interested parties should contribute directly to the exercises.

1.1.2. The four areas selected and examined in the pilot projects are:

- Intrastat - statistics on intra-Community trade;

- technical regulations on construction products;

- legislation relating to the mutual recognition of diplomas;

- legislation relating to ornamental plants.

1.2. The working method

1.2.1. A new working method brings together in small teams experts from the administrations of a few Member States and representatives of the users of the legislation, under a Commission Chairman. The pilot phase was devoted to legislation in the above four sectors. The four SLIM teams, which were chaired by personal nominees of the Commissioners responsible for each sector, are to report in time for the Internal Market Council in November.

1.2.2. The SLIM teams worked with a limited number of participants familiar with the subject in question. In many cases they produced options for simplification or improvement which were not favoured by all members.

1.2.3. Member States which did not have an expert on a team have been consulted - albeit using an abridged procedure in a number of cases - and the teams have received written submissions from some of the interested parties.

1.3. The recommendations of the SLIM teams

In general,

1) The recommendations of the Intrastat team include simplifying, or no longer collecting certain data from 1 January 1998, a substantial reduction in the number of subheadings in the nomenclature from 10 500 at present to less than 7 000, and adjusting the collection system or introducing a new one to reduce the burdens on business. Several methods can achieve this, among them more use of sampling, a two-tier system reducing the frequency of detailed returns and/or use by a group of Member States of the single flow system, based on export data only.

2) On the premise that rendering effective the application of the Directive was part of the mandate the team for Construction Products set out three options. The first was to improve the existing unsuccessful procedures for implementation, essentially those leading to Technical Specifications, particularly Harmonized Standards. The second option is for alignment on the 'New Approach` methodology - allowing products to be put on the market without prior agreement on technical specifications - and thus involving modification of the Construction Products Directive (CPD). The third option - favoured by the Commission - considers a two-stage solution of combining the first option with parallel action to bring closer together national regulations on construction works.

3) The principal conclusion of the team for the Recognition of diplomas, was that the sectoral directives should not be repealed. It also advocated retention of the advisory committees in a streamlined and more effective form. However, it held that the detailed education and training provisions of the sectoral Directives could be replaced by competency-based criteria derived from the outcome of education and training rather than its content.

4) The report from the Ornamental Plants team contains a distinct division of opinions. Some severely doubted the need for Community legislation at all in this field; but if retained, that legislation should be clarified and simplified.

1.4. The Commission's comments on the SLIM project

The Commission intends to pursue the project and to come forward with an extension of SLIM into a second phase involving other sectors, see point 2.8.4. However, the Commission paper intimates that extension will be conditional on the Council and Member States acceptance of both the working method adopted and the Commission's proposals for legislative changes in the four pilot fields. On each of the four areas the Commission anticipates the broad lines of the proposals it will make over the next years.

ESC'S COMMENTS ON THE SLIM INITIATIVE

2. General remarks

2.1. The Committee welcomes the SLIM initiative and thinks that it is a long wanted need that has now been identified and implemented. In order to judge whether the SLIM approach is the best way to proceed to achieve better legislation, the methods and working procedures, as such a notable improvement on previous ones, must nevertheless be critically examined. Existing consultation procedures which have proved their worth should be included in this examination.

2.2. The Committee shares the opinion of the EC that over-complicated regulation carries a high economic cost, endangering the competitiveness of industry and its employment-creating potential. All regulation - whether at Community or national level - must be fully justified and proportionate to its objectives. This applies both to new legislative initiatives and to existing legislation.

2.3. Therefore the European Union and the Member States need a common strategy for improving the quality of legislation. This should start with proposals for new legislation. It is always better to start with simple, transparent and effective legislation than to simplify existing legislation after the event.

2.4. Proposals for new legislation should be thoroughly tested for need and scope. If the Council, Parliament and ESC are to make informed decisions, each Community legislative proposal, especially if it is expected to have a significant impact on business conditions, needs to be accompanied by an objective analysis of the relevant facts, like an impact assessment, providing a proper basis on which political judgement can be made.

2.5. For existing legislation the precise methods used, and in particular the composition of the teams involved, will need to be adapted to the subject matter, with no subject matter excluded a priori but adequate safeguards taken in each case to ensure thorough consultation. At the same time steps must be taken to prevent the existing level of protection from being eroded.

2.6. Member States should in parallel with the Community simplify their legislation at all levels (national and local) especially that which results from the transposition of Community legislation.

2.7. The widespread use of directives leads many Member States to adopt more and more national legislation. The Committee therefore supports the increased use of regulations as a Community legislative tool.

2.8. The Commission should take a vigorous and active approach to auditing transposition and enforcement of EC legislation at national level in order to avoid, in particular, that incomplete transposition or other practices hamper the unity of the Community market.

2.9. Methodology

2.9.1. The novel aspect of the SLIM initiative is that experts drawn from some Member States' authorities and an equal number from users of legislation are associated in small teams chaired by a Commission nominee. This kind of composition appears to be adequate and well balanced, particularly since such a composition of the teams may guarantee an objective approach free of political interests. Formal submissions by Member States should be discouraged at this stage, as this will often be taken as an opportunity to restate well known positions and is unlikely to introduce new ideas to the debate.

2.9.2. Still the task is not to be considered completed with the submission of the reports by the teams. By then discussions and elaborations should be envisaged in order to transform such recommendations into practical formal proposals for simplification of the respective legislation - with special regard to administrative procedures - both at EU and Member State level. Special attention should be given to the scope for simplification of the administrative arrangements for the legislation at stake. Simplification like this should in no instance jeopardize well functioning administrations, since this would result in efficiency losses and costs increase.

2.9.3. Representatives of business in the Community have frequently expressed the view that the burden of legislation is far greater at the national rather than the Community level. Community legislation is often bedevilled by unnecessary 'gold plating` by Member States Governments. The lack of consistency between national and Community level legislation also causes problems for business and for the public. While the Commission and Parliament continue to strive for simpler Community legislation, action is also needed in the Member States. In order to improve the functioning of the Single Market, Member States must be ready to observe the same self-discipline in rule-making and the transposition of Community rules that they advocate for the Union, while for its part the Council should propound realistic methods of bringing Member States to implement simpler, approved Community legislation. However, this does not mean that one need never do any more than the minimum.

2.9.4. In any case the question of simplification on Member State level, urgent as it may be, needs to be discussed very thoroughly before being implemented in order to avoid results which may tend in a different direction than the original legislation was meant to go. On the other hand precious time might be lost and confusion created. To achieve efficient simplification clear-cut recommendations are needed and not just amendments with little or no effect.

2.10. Follow-up of the SLIM-project

2.10.1. The success of SLIM depends on the concrete action started by the Commission as a result of SLIM recommendations. The ESC calls therefore on the Commission to consult it in due time on the follow-up steps to the four pilot projects as well as to keep it informed on progress being made by the next group.

2.10.2. It is planned now to extend SLIM into a new phase, involving other sectors for scrutiny. To guarantee objective selection of new areas the Commission should employ formal criteria. Not only Member States should be consulted, but representatives of users of legislation should also be invited to put in their view. The ESC urges therefore the Commission to invite all interested parties to propose topics and suggestions for the further phases of SLIM.

2.10.3. A selection by the Commission should be based on the following criteria:

- the socio-economic significance of the topic (including its importance for the consumer and for industry) or its contribution to improving the quality of legislation; it must be clear from the outset that the results will be of real benefit to the Single Market;

- the ability of the topic materially to reduce the volume of regulations, thereby stimulating the economy and generating more employment;

- the question of what value-added SLIM consideration of the topic can provide, particularly in relation to other simplification programmes;

- practical considerations, such as whether the project can be concluded in a year;

- compatibility with the upcoming introduction of the euro;

- the question of whether men and women are affected differently.

2.10.4. Against this background the following suggestions for SLIM topics could be made:

- Phytosanitary matters

- Fertilizers

- Agricultural products

- Foodstuffs

- Public procurement,

bearing in mind that the Commission has now chosen the following legislative areas in the Single Market for future examination in the SLIM context:

- VAT

- Extra-Community statistics

- Banking

- One sector or group of products (yet to be determined).

Brussels, 23 April 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS