The Stoiber report: a milestone in the fight against EU red tape?

Edmund Stoiber presents his report

Today saw the publication of the final report of the "High Level Group on Administrative Burdens", i.e. an EU taskforce charged with cutting red tape and easing its impact on businesses. The group - chaired by former CSU leader and state Premier of Bavaria, Edmund Stoiber, was put together back in 2007, so its final report has been a long time coming.

As we have been going on about the costs of EU regulation long before it became fashionable - compiling the first ever overall cost figure for EU regulation based on UK government impact assessments in 2009 - this has been a report we have been eagerly anticipating.

The report contains a number of recommendations, some at the EU level and some at the national level. The key EU level recommendations include:

• Adopting a new EU Action programme and strengthening existing EU programmes for reducing overall regulatory costs such as REFIT, as well as setting a net target for reducing regulatory costs and publishing annual statements of the total net cost or benefit of new legislative proposals,
• Setting a net target for reducing EU regulatory costs,
• Introducing a system of offsetting new burdens on businesses stemming from EU legislation by removing existing burdens from elsewhere in the acquis,
• Rigorously applying the “Think Small First” principle and competitiveness test to all proposals, with SMEs and micro-businesses be exempted from EU obligations as far as possible,
• Developing a common EU methodology to measure regulatory costs and benefits and making the evaluation of all EU legislation compulsory on the basis of this in order to measure actual outcomes against original objectives before any proposals for revision or new legislation are made,
• Declaring a political commitment to focus only on those interventions which are indispensable at the EU level and which add the greatest value compared with national or regional action,
• Empowering an independent body to scrutinise the Commission´s impact assessments before the legislative proposal is adopted by the Commission and to assess the evidence base and costs and benefits supporting legislative amendments by the European Parliament and Council before the legislation is adopted.

The report estimates that were all these to be adopted, businesses in the EU could save up to €41bn per year on top of proposals already adopted by the Commission and European Parliament with an "annual reduction potential" of €33.4bn.

Overall, the recommendations are very welcome and reflect many of the proposals that we have been championing for some time - for example, we first proposed an independent impact assessment board with "real teeth" back in 2009. The report also overlaps with David Cameron's business taskforce report published last year, albeit the Stoiber report does not explicitly call for the adoption of a 'one in, one out' principle when it comes to new regulation. Also, the report does not address big questions like the extent to which the EU should be involved in social and employment policy and the impact of the European Court of Justice in increasing the costs of EU regulation via the back-door as has happened most notably in the case of the Working Time Directive (which the report does not mention). 

Nonetheless the report - together with the nomination of Frans Timmermans as Commissioner for better regulation in a generally reform-orientated Commission - is indicative of a cultural shift within the Commission away from regulation as a process in of itself towards securing concrete outcomes and addressing business concerns. It is certainly, among other things, a nod to concerns raised around the EU and the UK in particular about the EU's tendency to over-regulate and impose excessive costs on businesses and consumers. 

In fact yesterday's Guardian reported that Stoiber explicitly referenced the need to keep the UK on board, and in presenting the report he argued - as passionately as it is possible to when discussing EU regulation - in favour of an EU that is less obtrusive, heavy-handed and opaque. He also admitted that in the past, many politicians and EU officials had seen any EU-level regulation - regardless of its desirability or suitability - as a means to advance the 'EU cause', but that such thinking was now history (although we would say it hasn't completely gone away).  

Overall, it is clear there is a real opportunity to create a more enterprise and business-friendly single market. However, as ever with EU reform the challenge for the new Commission and for national governments will be to translate the rhetoric into concrete action. The fact that the Commission President Barroso has seemingly rejected one of the proposals already - for an independent impact assessment board is concerning.

.@BarrosoEU doesn't support idea of independent body to control impact assessments. "Commission is sufficiently independent & strong."
— Jarno Hartikainen (@JarnoHa) October 14, 2014

This suggests the Commission is nervous about independent scrutiny of its cost estimates for new EU regulation. An independent IA board would be better at catching out harmful proposals - such as the infamous olive oil jug ban - and delivering more measured verdicts on politically contentious issies such as the proposed FTT, where major problems with the Commission’s proposal emerged after it had been tabled and undergone an internal impact assessment. The Commission's resistance suggests that despite much progress, there is still some way to go.

Is the CBI right to claim the net benefit of the EU to the UK is 4-5% of GDP?

Is the CBI right to claim
the EU benefits UK GDP by 4-5%?

As we discussed in our previous post, the CBI's report on Europe, published today, makes for interesting and thought-provoking reading. However, the CBI’s estimate of the net benefits of EU membership isn’t the strongest part of the report.

The CBI puts the net benefit at between £62bn and £78bn, or between 4% and 5% of UK GDP. This, it claims, is equivalent to £3,000 per household or £1,225 per individual. Credit to the CBI for trying to inject some hard numbers into the debate. However, putting a single figure on the costs and benefits of such a complex arrangement is notoriously difficult – as we ourselves know too well. The CBI does readily admit that in its report, and to be fair, very clearly qualifies its figure.

 

Still, there are at least three problems with this figure, which in combination means it should be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

 

Arbitrary extrapolation based on a highly limited literature review: Ultimately, the figure is taken from a literature review of previous estimates of the benefits. On average, the literature surveyed puts the net benefit of EU membership at between 2%  and 3% of GDP. The review covers only five pieces of literature with the most recent one being from 2008. This is a very small pool of literature to draw from. More critically, the CBI goes onto assert,

“Since these studies are not mutually exclusive…it is not unreasonable to infer that the net benefit arising from EU membership is somewhat higher than 2–3%, perhaps in the region of 4–5% as a conservative estimate.”

It’s widely accepted that EU membership comes with unquantifiable benefits, but the CBI takes a massive leap of faith here. It seems to suggest that the net benefits of different aspects can be tallied up given that they are not mutually exclusive – and it may well be that dynamic effects triggered by, say, EU market access mean net benefits are often underestimated. However, curiously, the CBI provides no proper explanation or evidence for why it settled on 4% to 5%, leaving us guessing where this extra net benefit actually comes from. Having discussed this with the CBI, it’s clear that they have aggregated the net benefits of various aspects of the EU from different studies.

 

While there is logic in this approach, given the diverse nature of the studies it is tricky to simply add parts of the up, assuming that they work the same together as they do in isolation. After all, there is a reason why these studies have struggled to produce a clear figure for all the areas themselves. Once this approach was chosen more detail should have been included in the CBI report, even if it meant adding a statistical or economic annex (given the hugely sensitive nature of the EU cost-benefit debate).

 

No proper counterfactual is given: What are these net benefits measured against? Does the CBI assume that the UK outside the EU would be left with no trade deal and no single market access? If not, then the net benefit is presumably lower than the 4% to 5% identified. This is the classical shortcoming of most EU cost-benefit studies. In the CBI study, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that the various pieces of literature that it draws from will themselves have diverse counterfactuals.

It’s all the more surprising given that the CBI rightly goes to great lengths to discuss the counterfactuals when it comes to the costs of EU membership, arguing for example that some EU regulations would remain even if the UK left the EU given that they would be domestically needed or pursued by international groups  (which we agree with).

 

Why the same rigour is not applied to its calculation of the net benefits of the EU is not clear. UKIP-types have mastered the art of measuring EU costs with no reference to a counterfactual (see here for a fine example). To a large extent, the CBI study falls into the same trap.

 

Benefits aren’t evenly distributed: Lastly, in an understandable attempt to present an easily digestible figure, the CBI converts its percentage number into pounds and presents it as an evenly distributed benefit over households and individuals. Of course, this is unlikely to be the real benefit felt by households or individuals, with any benefit distributed unevenly and in ways which are nearly impossible to measure.

9%, 43%, 50%, 60%, 84%: How many domestic laws are linked to EU law? The case of Sweden

It's up there with the origins of the universe as one of the great existential questions of our time (well...): how many national laws stem from Brussels?

European Commissioner Viviane Reding - who does what she can to turn people against the EU - recently told a "Debating Europe" event in Sweden (H/T @AllieRenison):

Did you know that 80% of Swedish laws are not Swedish laws? They are European laws that have been translated into Swedish legislation.

In addition to the comment being ridiculous (it was in reply to a question about the EU costing too much)  she seems to have plucked this number out of thin air. Incidentally, it would top Nigel Farage's much-criticised claim that 75% of all UK laws are made in Brussels. Another example of Better Off Outers and Europhiles agreeing.

As regular readers will know, the Open Europe team has gone to hell and back trying to answer this question, and our conclusion is that it's virtually impossible to determine with any degree of certainty what the share of EU-derived laws is. It all depends on what you count, how you define an EU-derived law and what the counter-factual is.

It most certainly is higher than 9% as some claim. Counting UK Statutory Instruments, which is what the study from which this number is drawn from did, isn't that meaningful as there's no 1-1 correlation between that and EU law. It also doesn't include EU Regulations which, unlike Directives, are directly applicable, giving no rise to separate domestic legislation.

The 84% figure that is often cited originates from an answer to a German parliamentary question, comparing the number of new federal laws and new EU laws in one year. However, this is also too simplistic. For example, counting only federal laws in a federal system isn't particularly meaningful. Germany has 16 Länder that churn out laws as well.

Now, a new Swedish study has thrown in another number to debate. The Riksdag and Departement - the Swedish Parliament's in-house magazine - has reviewed 1,300 Swedish legislative proposals, dating back to 2005. It found that the share of legislative proposals in 2012 originating in the EU stands at 43% - a dramatic increase compared to 2010 when the share was 28%. Of the 104 laws that so far have been proposed by the Riksdag this year, about a third originate in the EU.

This is a quick and dirty study in many ways - it measures only the so-called flow of EU legislation, not its stock. And the flow clearly is subject to a lot of variation. Its proposals and not laws passed. And, as with the German study, it doesn't look at local rules. Local government is important in the Swedish system, with Councils (or municipalities) having plenty of decision-making power. So any serious "EU law count" would have to look at this dimension as well.

But, we're not done yet. A 2010 report by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions - who should know a thing or two about local decision-making - does address this very question. It says this:

The report shows that, on average, the EU affects 60 percent of items on municipal council agendas. The number is slightly lower for county councils and regions, where the EU influences around 50 percent of agenda items. 

Given that these are local decisions, it does sound high to us, but remember the report doesn't count laws per se, but issues considered by the local government in Sweden (public procurement considerations for example will always be influenced by EU law, despite it not necessarily giving rise to new local rules).

A few conclusions:

• Viviane Reding really must be on the UKIP payroll 
• It remains incredibly difficult to nail down exactly how many laws originate in the EU
• The share of EU laws is best measured in terms of domestic legislation "influenced by" or "linked to" EU decisions, ideally in combination with the measurable impact of these laws (our preferred way) to get a sense of the relative impact
• Any EU law count must also look at the local or regional level.
• Still, a h*** of a lot of domestic laws stem from the EU 

UK government's business taskforce launches push to cut EU red tape

Today sees the release of the Business Taskforce report on cutting EU red tape in an effort to boost competitiveness. As our previous work on EU regulation suggests - the Taskforce is picking up on many of our suggestions - this is a push we are very much in favour of, particularly at a time when squeezing out every bit of economic growth possible is vital for economies across the EU.

The report proposes 30 wide ranging reforms to cut EU red tape.We're still working our way through the detailed suggestions but we've included some initial reaction below, which we'll update as we go.

• The task force backs the full implementation of the EU’s Services Directive. This could deliver up to a €230bn boost to EU GDP, according Open Europe estimates. However, we have suggested the EU should go even further and push for the introduction of the ‘country of origin principle’ which could increase further gains to closer to €300bn (2.3% of EU GDP).

• Open Europe welcomes the push to exempt small businesses from burdensome legislation, although more needs to be done to address existing issues with social and employment law.

• In a report from 2011, Open Europe estimated that EU social policy (i.e. EU social and employment legislation and EU health and safety rules) cost the UK economy £8.6 billion a year. The figure is heavily driven by a few very costly EU Directives – most importantly the Working Time Directive and the Temporary Agency Workers Directive. However, some health and safety laws stemming from the EU also represent a net cost to the UK economy. This is the case, for instance, for the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 and the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005.

• The task force has adopted Open Europe’s recommendation that low-risk firms be exempted from the obligation to regularly update their health and safety risk assessments.

• Looking for ways to improve EU-wide competitiveness and the European business environment, as the report recommends, rather than looking for specific UK opt-outs is likely to increase the chance of support from like-minded EU countries.

• Creation of a digital single market could be vital, particularly from the UK perspective with over 70% of UK citizens having bought products or services online but only around 10% having done so across borders.

• Open Europe recommended adopting a ‘one in, one out’ rule for EU regulation back in 2010 and continues to support such a move as suggested by the task force’s report.

• On-going assessment of the impact of regulation is vital. For example, the benefits of many regulations are based on assumptions or forecasts and while probable or viable at the time, these do not always come to pass. EU regulations on environment and climate change are a prime example of this. With circumstances shifting it is important that regulation is flexible.

• The Taskforce also adopts out proposal that Commission proposals which don't come with a robust Impact Assessment, clearly showing the need for and benefit of the law, should be dropped. We agree that more effective use of Impact Assessments is vital and giving the EU’s so-called Impact Assessment Board (IAB) more teeth (which we has long advocated) and the power to ‘red flag’ harmful EU proposals (e.g. the ban on olive oil jugs) would be a positive start. The focus of the IAB must be to ensure high methodological standards so that approval of a regulation depends on its merits, not political motives (for example, major problems with the Commission’s proposal for a financial transaction tax emerged after it had been tabled and undergone a Commission impact assessment).

These ideas deserve the support of like-minded EU member states at a time when policymakers are desperately seeking ways to improve Europe’s growth and competitiveness. It is essential that these good ideas are followed by concrete action to reduce the existing and future burden of EU law on European and British businesses.

The war on EU red tape: Will this time be any different?

The headlines above speak for themselves. From time to time, the European Commission makes an announcement that it will make EU business rules "lighter", "simpler" or "smarter". But it deliberately stays away from the terms "deregulation" or "less regulation". They are usually a mixed bag, ranging from measures with real impact to irrelevant to even involving more regulation. To date, none of these initiatives have come anywhere close to achieving less, but better EU regulation across the board, that we and many businesses are calling for.

The European Commission has now unveiled the first results of REFIT - or its Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme. Based on a 'screening' of the entire stock of EU legislation, the Commission has set out what it's planning to do (or not do) to make EU law lighter.

So will this time be different? Well, yet again, the proposal is a mixed bag.

The good stuff:

The Commission lists a number of proposals it has already put out, and are pending approval from member states and MEPs. Some of these would have a positive impact, including:

• Making EU public procurement rules more SMEs-friendly, mainly via the reduction of the paperwork needed to bid for contracts;
• Making it easier for professional qualifications to be recognised in different member states;
• A one-stop-shop for clinical trials.

The Commission also stresses it is already carrying out (or will do so in the near future) thorough evaluations of EU regulations in a dozen policy areas. These include:

• All EU rules on health and safety at work (no less than 23 separate Directives at the moment) - though the evaluation would only be published by the end of 2015;
• EU rules on temporary agency workers (which cost the UK economy around €2 billion a year);
• The Renewables Directive, which is dated and ridiculously micro-managing.

These rules are in desperate need of revision, so well done Commission for identifying them.

The not-so-good stuff:

Dropping proposals that are dead in the water: The Commission is offering to scrap proposals that are pending and unlikely to be adopted, which of course has no tangible impact as they haven't been adopted yet. Some of the proposals identified (e.g. a Directive simplifying VAT obligations or a Regulation on the statute of a European private company) have been pending for ages and were unlikely to ever come to pass.

Turning several rules into one rule:  The Commission also puts forth several ideas for the 'codification' and the 'consolidation' of existing legislation, meaning turning different sets of rules into one set of rules. As we pointed out in the past, if you merge ten existing directives into one, you definitely make the acquis more user-friendly, which has value in itself. However, if the substance of the rules remain, the impact on business will also remain pretty much the same, so this is of limited value on the ground.

More EU harmonisation: Somewhat cheekily, the Commission has also snuck in a proposal for more EU integration in a contentious area by presenting a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base as an example of simplification. Now, there may be a business-case for a CCCTB, but this also seems like back-door 'harmonisation' - which is a very different thing from 'simplification'.

In conclusion, so far there are some positive steps in here, but whether it will turn into a serious, de-regulatory exercise - with real impact on businesses - will very much depend on what comes out of the Commission's review and level of follow through.