SEAP welcomes the European Commission’s Better Regulation Communication and its recognition that the European Union’ Better Regulation framework can always be improved, and that the quality of EU lawmaking matters for competitiveness, legal certainty, enforcement and trust. The priority now is clear: these commitments must translate into a genuine change in how EU legislation is designed, assessed, negotiated, implemented and enforced. This includes a commitment at the political level to follow the principles of evidence-based policymaking, even at times of uncertainty.
Better Regulation not an administrative exercise
SEAP has long argued that Better Regulation is not an administrative exercise, but a prerequisite for effective, credible and enforceable EU policymaking. Rules that are evidence-based, proportionate, transparent and workable in practice are essential to support competitiveness, innovation, investment and trust in the EU decision-making process.
Emma Brown, President of SEAP, said: “Better Regulation is not bureaucracy. It is what makes EU law credible, enforceable and trusted. This Communication sets the right direction, but it remains largely a closed-system exercise, without sufficient involvement or reflection on the essential role of stakeholders and evidence providers.”
In SEAP’s view, Better Regulation rests on three mutually reinforcing pillars: good policy design tools at services level; political accountability, both within the Commission and among the co-legislators; and evidence collection and stakeholder feedback embedded by design throughout the policy cycle. The Communication makes progress on the first pillar, sends a useful signal on the second, but remains weakest on the third.
Design tools
On policy design tools, the Communication puts forward several useful proposals. The commitment to accompany a wider range of initiatives with impact assessments scrutinised by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, greater discipline in the use of delegated and implementing acts, and clearer minimum requirements for accelerated legislative pathways are all welcome steps. At the same time, the Communication falls short on certain aspects. In particular, allowing the supporting analytical document to be published up to three months after a proposal has been adopted under extreme urgency is difficult to reconcile with the principle that impact assessments should inform, rather than follow, political choices.
Political accountability
On political accountability, the recognition that substantial amendments introduced by the European Parliament and the Council should be assessed for their expected impacts is a particularly important signal. Better Regulation principles must apply consistently at the political level in both the Commission and the co-legislators, and must guide the full legislative cycle: from policy design, consultation and impact assessment, through political negotiations, to transposition, implementation and enforcement. Beyond the design of individual tools, Better Regulation depends on how those tools are actually used. It is fundamentally a matter of culture, and SEAP advocates for deepening this Better Regulation culture at all levels. Unfortunately, the Communication could have been stronger on this point. Mandatory training is foreseen for legislative drafters, but a broader cultural shift requires a comparable investment in all officials involved in policy development, and a sustained political commitment to evidence-based decision-making across institutions.
Evidence collection and stakeholder feedback
On evidence collection and stakeholder feedback, the Communication is weakest. Robust, well-structured input from those who provide evidence and live with the resulting rules in practice should be embedded by design throughout the policy cycle, in the same way the Commission speaks of “simplicity by design” and “enforcement by design”. Streamlining consultation tools should not reduce meaningful stakeholder input. Efficient consultation must still allow sufficient time and space for robust, practical and evidence-based contributions.
The way forward
To support a stronger and more shared Better Regulation culture, SEAP proposes the creation of a community of practice on Better Regulation, bringing together institutional users and external practitioners to exchange experience, refine the tools and strengthen consistent application across files. Such a structured forum would help ensure that consultation, evidence gathering and impact assessment genuinely inform decisions, and that lessons from implementation feed back into the design of new initiatives.
SEAP stands ready to support an approach that delivers clearer rules, stronger accountability, better enforcement and legislation that is predictable, proportionate and workable in practice. Through our Better Regulation working group, we will continue to develop concrete proposals to take this agenda forward in partnership with the institutions.