Debate: SME Relief Package
Date: WEDNESDAY, 13 SEPTEMBER 2023
Speaker: Věra Jourová
Language: EN

We heard here several times that, indeed, SMEs are the backbone of the economy. They employ a high number of people in the EU. And I fully agree that we and our economy depend on them. That is absolutely clear. Sometimes – and I think I already said it in this House last time – that I hear the opinion that by not decreasing the administrative burden and not helping the SMEs, we are biting the hand which is feeding us. And I think that this is a quite appropriate metaphor for that. Mr Wallace, Madam President Ursula von der Leyen spoke today about the SMEs’ relief, and so she spoke about the small and medium enterprises as they fall under those categories – so just to make it make it clear also from our side. I heard from many of you today that it’s good that we came with this initiative, but that it’s late. I would say indeed, it’s high time that we start the communication which is accompanying the two directives; it’s the indication of the way forward. The decrease of the reporting obligations by 25% is just the start. And I believe that also the payment discipline and the deadline for the payments and the tax simplification will be a key improvement. Madam Grapini, I was also Minister of Regional Development, so I had small and medium enterprises in my portfolio and I heard from entrepreneurs also at the local level, at regional level, at state level. And now I hear it very often: ‘Don’t give us money. Your money is very difficult, complicated. We don’t need it. Don’t give us artificial advice. Something which you cannot advise us on, because you don’t know the practice. Give us freedom and space to do business’. And I think that this is exactly the philosophy we have to follow and we have to continue what has been started with the package. We in the previous mandate tried through the better regulation to catch the cases of unnecessary burden on SMEs. We introduced the impact assessments and also a result of better regulation was that there was a significant reduction of the pieces of legislation. But as many of you rightly said here, we have to look into the legislation, not just about the quantity. This Commission came with ‘one in, one out’. We are applying this principle, but still I feel that we need a stronger method and better methodology, how to catch the cases of unnecessary burdens and unnecessary reporting. And here comes the idea of the special envoy who should be employed in the Commission. I would say that the role of this person, who in my view, should be somebody who knows the practice – it cannot be a long-life bureaucrat. Sorry, it has to be somebody who understands the small and medium enterprises. We are launching the process to select such person. So this envoy’s task, in my view, should be – and I will call it permanent vigilance – because when we propose the legislation on Commission level, at the start of the legislative process, we always have impact assessment which says there will be a minor impact on the SMEs, something very little, something very innocent. But when the innocent burdens are piling up, then it can create something which will be uneasy to bear for the small and medium enterprises. That’s why this envoy has to be there from the beginning of the legislation. He or she has to sit with the regulatory scrutiny board. But here comes the role of your House and the Member States. This person should have a strong say also during the trilogues. Because it happened many, many times when we tried in the Commission to come with something which will not overregulate and overburden the small and medium enterprises, but the result of the trilogue increased the burdens and that was the problem. So I think that to have the special envoy has big sense; it’s a purposeful proposal. And I believe that if we manage to find the proper person to do this job, we might see significant progress and see – it won’t be so visible at first sight, but I think that after some time it should be clear – that the envoy managed to, if you if I may say it, shout in the right moments when he or she sees that this is exactly what we don’t have to do: unnecessary reporting, unnecessary burdens. What the SMEs are telling me very often: ‘no regulation, good regulation’. I don’t agree with this fully, but smart regulation is something which I am sure the small and medium enterprises will appreciate a lot. I know I am beyond time, so maybe a last comment. I was a bit disappointed when we had the conference on the future of Europe that we did not hear a stronger voice– even I would say a constructive shout – from the side of the businesses because this was exactly the moment when we were designing the future priorities, and so I find this a missed opportunity. But we are starting now, I think, a very reasonable process. And I believe that the SMEs will see soon positive progress and positive results.