Transcript "Minimising Regulatory Burden for SMEs"

Minimizing regulatory burden
for SMEs
Marianne Klingbeil
Deputy Secretary General, European Commission
Meeting of the HLG, 19 September 2013
The tool box
● Think Small First principle: the impact on SMEs
should be taken into account as early as possible in
the policy-making process.
● SME test: the application of the Think Small First
principle in the impact assessment process. Defined in
the impact assessment guidelines.
● Reversed burden of proof: a strengthened SME test
which includes 'a micro-enterprise exemption'.
Reversed burden of proof
• Since 2012 micro-enterprises should a priori be
excluded from the scope of the proposed legislation
unless the necessity/proportionality of their being
covered can be demonstrated.
• Where an exception is impossible/disproportional,
adapted solutions and lighter regimes should be
considered.
• The analysis of whether to cover micros and of
possible adapted solutions should be included in the
impact assessment report.
Applied at every step
• Roadmaps should explain whether the planned initiative
will have an impact on micro-enterprises/SMEs and if so,
how the reversed burden of proof will be addressed.
• Public consultation should consult micro-enterprises
on their preferred option: exemption, special provisions
or full inclusion.
• Impact assessments should analyse whether microenterprises need to be included in the scope of an
option. When an exemption is not feasible, the IA should
identify possible alternatives.The IAB checks whether the
reversed burden of proof has been carried out where
applicable.
Practical application
● In 2013, 69 IA reports were presented to the IAB (up to
September), 16 have been adopted so far.
● In none of these 16 cases micros have been exempted a
priori from the scope of the initiative.
● The main justifications for their non-exemption were:
● SMEs/micros are not affected/present (e.g. Single Sky
authorities, Public prosecutor's office, investment/money funds)
● SMEs/micros are among the beneficieries (e.g RTD
spending programmes, Regional state aid guidelines, port
services)
● The proposal concerns safety aspects (e.g. drug precursors)
Examples
1. Fees for European Medical Agency (no exemption from
scope, mitigating measures)
2. E-Invoicing in Public Procurement (no exemption from
scope)
3. Monitoring of Trade of Drug Precursors (no exemption
from scope, mitigating measures)
4. Revision of Package Travel Directive (no exemption
from scope)
5. Road Vehicles Weight Restrictions (no exemption from
scope)
1. Fees for European Medical Agency
● About 30% of companies in this field are microenterprises.
● As costs are important for smaller companies, fee
reductions for SMEs and fee waivers for microenterprise were suggested, in line with feedback of
consultation.
● Final proposal: Reductions of fees for SMEs and
micro-enterprises fully exempted from fees.
2. E-Invoicing in Public Procurement
• The IA contains an explicit analysis of impacts on
SMEs/micro-enterprises for all options.
• Justification for their inclusion: micros should be able
to benefit from e-invoicing and there are no negative
impacts if they do not wish to do so.
• Final proposal:
"This Directive does not place any additional costs or
burden on enterprises, including micro, small and
medium-sized enterprises."
3. Monitoring of Trade of Drug Precursors
● No general exclusion of micros, as this would
make it possible to circumvent controls. Traffickers
could establish themselves as micro-entities in order
to evade controls by the authorities.
● Mitigating measures for micros analysed (e.g.
reduced or no fees).
● Micros exempted from fees in the proposal.
4. Revision of Package Travel Directive
● SMEs constitute 99% tour operators and travel
agencies in the EU, out of which 92% are micros.
● All operators suffer from the absence of fair
competition and costs stemming from unclear rules.
● An exclusion of micro and small businesses from the
scope would therefore not be a viable option.
● Impacts on SMEs/micros explicitly analysed for all
options in the impact assessment.
● SMEs/micros will overall benefit from clearer rules and
fair competition.
5. Road Vehicles Weight Restrictions
● More than 80% are micro-companies.
● Any change to the legislation must apply to the
micro enterprises in order to be effective.
● Mitigating measures not discussed because cost
savings will outweigh investment costs in the longer
term.
Background information
● Communication "Minimizing regulatory burden for SMEs Adapting EU regulation to the needs of micro-enterprises"
(COM (2011) 803 final).
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0803:FIN:EN:PDF
● Operational guidance on assessing impacts on microenterprises in Commission Impact Assessments:
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/key_docs/docs/meg_guidelines.pdf
The steps of the SME-test
1.
2.
3.
4.
Consultation with SME representatives
Preliminary assessment of businesses likely to be affected
Measurement of the impact on SMEs
Assess alternative options and use of mitigating measures,
if appropriate
For details see:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/small-business-act/smetest/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/docs/sba/iag_2009_annex_en.pdf