Debate: Better regulation: joining forces to make better laws
Date: THURSDAY, 7 JULY 2022
Speaker: Tiemo Wölken
Country: Italy
Language: EN

Indeed, there were several very good aspects integrated in the Commission’s Better Regulation Communication. Thank you very much for that. But sometimes with good also comes bad, and here I would like to focus on two specific things that I personally still am very sceptical about.  While conducting our work, we need to be able to gain the trust of EU citizens and take them with us along the legislative process. In order to gain trust there needs to be transparency. When looking at the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, especially said transparency is simply missing. We have a board that is composed of seven members, none of them elected, meaning that they are not accountable to citizens or us as policymakers. Additionally, four out of seven Board members are Commission employees, decreasing credibility and weakening its independence.  I am very concerned to see that one of the objects set out by the Commission is to strengthen the board. For example, I believe that transparency in regard to Scrutiny Board meetings with stakeholders, reviews, recommendations and opinions should be significantly improved. Moreover, the work of the Board should not ultimately affect the Commission’s capacity to propose legislation or unduly delay the adoption of legislative proposals. In 2021 alone, one third of the impact assessments received a negative first opinion by the Board, leading to delays. And speaking about delays, the Board gave two negative opinions on the due diligence proposal, and now we have to work here in Parliament under extreme time pressure.  The Board can only provide an effective check on the Commission’s work if it is independent and impartial, so this needs to be established. Therefore, we are calling for the independence of the Board and for transparency of the Board’s meetings through making use of the transparency register mandatory, and also by publishing reviews, recommendations and opinions without any delay. And this is what I need to underline here – without any delay.  Secondly, the one-in-one-out approach which the Commission disappointingly introduced unilaterally without a prior impact assessment or consultation. I am personally very sceptical about this approach. I believe that the energy that will be required by Commission staff to tick the box could indeed be usefully used somewhere else. I believe that this approach must, under no circumstances, run counter to the objective of better regulation. Moreover, this approach should not lead to mechanical decisions of repeating legislation just for the sake of it.  This is why we are calling for this approach to be based on a transparent and evidence-based methodology, giving proportionate consideration to all sustainability aspects, both in terms of benefits and costs, including the costs of non-compliance and inaction, and taking into account the administrative, social, environmental and public health impacts. Coming back to transparency, we call on you, Commissioner, to take the one-in-one-out calculator, to make it public as soon as possible and to obtain the support of all institutions before applying this approach.  And one last note: I would like to thank all my colleagues and their teams who have contributed to the discussion on this report. I am looking forward to the discussion and colleagues, Commissioner, let us build trust together with all the institutions.