The European Commission published their end of term review of Better Regulation. For BetterRegulation geeks, it is a useful update.
Better regulation: taking stock and sustaining our commitment 15 April 2019 (link)
The Commission’s diagnosis was good: “Overall, the message is positive: better regulation has improved the way policy is made and should remain at the heart of our working methods for the future. ” (p. 2)
The Commission makes the case for evidence-based policymaking. They note that “In a ‘post-fact’ world, … evidence-based policymaking is neither a priority of the past nor a normal professional practice of the day. It remains a key imperative for the future.” (p.3)
“A cultural change has been taking hold within the Commission in recent years. However, this change is not irreversible yet.” (p.4) I find this too positive. There are too many officials, in too many Directorate-Generals, who draw a blank you mention the Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox.
It was nice to see a nod to the prospect that impact assessments can be used for secondary legislation. Many officials just deny it. The report gives the example of ILUC .
They are open that not all proposals get an impact assessment. They mention 8.5% Commission proposals you would have expected an impact assessment did not have one. These will be politically sensitive files that needed speedy adoption. The list is not given.
They mention 19.5% where an impact assessment was not considered necessary. Greater granularity would be useful here.
The Commission remains against a target reduction approach (p.11). And, they regret that only 2 member states have notified their gold plating measures in 3 years. Something is clearly amiss.
What does it not say
It is clear that the Better Regulation system is likely to continue because it offers a good mechanism for administrative and political control for the President.
There are some gaps:
First, there is no mention of Case 57/16, Client Earth v. Commission, granting access to the impact assessment. It is an important judgement I am finding the Commission find very hard to abide by.
Second, it is unclear whether the first Vice-President, tasked with enforcing Better Regulation, has required any draft proposals to be withdrawn because they breach the Guidelines.
Finally, the numbers need a lot more specificity. I am guessing cases, where the call for an impact assessment for secondary legislation has been made and ignored, are not in the list.