It is generally accepted that the European venture is above all a legal construction: it cannot be disputed that the legal basis is essential for the harmonised production of European statistics. In 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon turned the European legal landscape and the way it works on its head by reforming the relations between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission on the one hand, and by amending the comitology on the other hand. Statistics did not escape these developments. Having accumulated a large number of legislative texts defining these statistics over the years, there was a need to rationalise and simplify the legal basis in this domain, especially since the acceleration of European integration has been accompanied by a growing demand for new indicators (Scherrer, 2019). In view of this new institutional balance, the European co-legislators and the Commission (Eurostat) have drawn up separate framework regulations for social statistics (IESS), business statistics (FRIBS), and farming statistics (IFS), which form the cornerstones of a new legal triptych (framework regulation/delegated act/implementing act) essential for the production of European statistics.

The running of the European Union (EU) demands reliable statistics that are harmonised across the various countries. The need for information is linked to the implementation and monitoring of European policies, which concern a number of different domains: public finances; macroeconomic, regional, environmental and societal policies, etc.

The term “European statistics” covers the quantitative information necessary for the performance of European activities. They are governed by the European Statistical Programme, the details of which are defined by Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on European statistics, amended in 2015 (2015/759). The legal framework for European statistics has been at the forefront from the outset (Mordant, 2009).

In order to ensure the comparability and consistency of data across all Member States, the latter must comply with common reference frameworks. The majority of these standards are enshrined in a text adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The legislative framework gives them strong legal status as well as priority in the allocation of resources: this applies to the National Statistical Institutes (NSIs), which have an obligation to respond, as well as to Eurostat, which is able to allocate subsidies to the Member States.

Despite varying organisations and scopes, all NSIs implement European statistical legislation. They therefore participate in joint work and operations based on the strategic objectives of the European Statistical System (ESS) (Box 1).

Production is based on the same model: the national statistical office of each Member State produces either detailed or aggregated data, on the basis of which it compiles its own “European statistics”. Those data are submitted to Eurostat, which centralises and exploits them in the form of indicators and tables, which are published on its website. At the same time, each NSI disseminates the European statistics at national level.

In the spirit of the principle of subsidiarity, according to which a central authority can only perform tasks that cannot be undertaken at lower level, European statistics are essentially produced by the national statistical offices using the methods they consider most appropriate: surveys, use of administrative sources or of big data, etc. They are also free to choose survey methods, sampling techniques, data processing methods, etc. The key point is their obligation to produce statistics that comply with the definitions and quality standards set out in the European legislative framework.

In recent years, the development of the European venture has led to an acceleration and amplification of the demand for common and comparable statistics. As a result, the “legislative” spectrum of European statistics has gradually expanded, reflecting a growing demand for indicators, as well as a need for information at increasingly fine geographical levels.

This situation has led to a proliferation of legislative texts, which is more a case of “stacking” than structured organisation: there are at least sixty pieces of legislation governing the production of statistics in a number of domains, such as farming, industry, energy, transport, employment and household income.

In order to better meet the expectations of decision-makers and the public, particularly in terms of the comparability and availability of statistics, while at the same time improving the cost-effectiveness of their production, the European Commission saw fit to adapt its legislative approach.

First, it brought in framework regulations with a view to rationalising, harmonising and simplifying the legislative basis for European statistics by integrating previously stand-alone sectoral regulations. The rationalisation of the legislative system has also provided a legislative basis for the production of certain statistics, which had, until then, still been based on agreements between Eurostat and the Member States.

In this context, three framework regulations have been established by restructuring three main domains of European statistics (farming statistics, business statistics and social statistics), each of which is covered by a framework regulation:

Their entry into force is expected to reduce the number of legislative texts governing the production of European statistics by almost 20%.

For example, the Integrated European Social Statistics framework regulation (IESS) made it possible to repeal and therefore integrate the two main legislative regulations that represented the pillars of social surveys: the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and the Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (SILC). FRIBS, the Framework Regulation Integrating Business Statistics, alone replaces ten sectoral legislative regulations.

One of the main objectives of these framework regulations is to improve the comparability of European statistics, not only between countries but also between sources in each of the domains.

For example, IESS should make it possible to improve the comparability of statistics on the employment status of the population (as defined by the International Labour Office) by setting up a shared and compulsory structure for the Employment survey. At the same time, as part of the overhaul of the legislation for social statistics, a great deal of work has been carried out to standardise the variables and harmonise the concepts (introduction of the concept of the economic household in the Employment survey and in the Household Income and Living Conditions survey).

In the domain of business statistics, it is the definition of a company that has been made more consistent in the FRIBS framework regulation.

With a view to enhancing comparability, this new legislative approach also aims to:

For example, FRIBBS will bring about simplifications and adaptations against the new backdrop of globalisation, particularly when it comes to the exchange of micro-data on intra-Community export flows and the production of a Community directory of groups of companies, which is significantly enriched.

In the domain of farming statistics, IFS aims to simplify and better integrate the collection processes by overhauling the regulation on farm structures and merging it with that dedicated to the various crops grown on these farms.

Eurostat also wanted to establish standards in broader domains than those covered to date. New topics are emerging, such as globalisation, climate change and the ageing of the population.

For example, IFS, the first framework regulation adopted in August 2018, aimed to integrate the new demands brought about by developments in the Common Agricultural Policy, new agri-environmental requirements and societal and economic expectations.

With regard to globalisation, the aim is to better measure its effects by means of the improved profiling of companies. The national company registers and the EuroGroups register will therefore be used more extensively in this domain. The implementation of FRIBS will also allow coverage to be extended to sectors experiencing strong growth, such as services and commerce. Worthy of note is the fact that a monthly services producer price index will be produced (Scherrer, 2019).

Finally, IESS now provides a legal framework for the computing of the monthly European unemployment indicator, although the way Eurostat calculates it on the basis of data submitted by the Member States remains largely unchanged.

These framework regulations also provide an opportunity to create a legislative and therefore binding basis for surveys that, until now, have been conducted on a voluntary basis. The scope of the IESS framework regulation therefore now also includes the Family Budget Survey and the Time Use Survey and, although the latter remains optional for the time being, it should eventually be made compulsory.

If the framework regulations provide for an extension of the scope of European statistics, this is also in order to take better account of the demands of the individual users who act as political decision-makers: new indicators are always needed in order to monitor European policies; as the trend is one of amplification, it is necessary to anticipate future demands as far as is possible. This desire manifests itself in at least three different ways.

Therefore, IESS already specifies the concepts and definitions for the Time Use survey, although this remains optional for the time being. The development of a multi-annual programme for the annual social surveys, coupled with the introduction of additional ad hoc subjects, will also make it possible to more easily meet future demands for social statistics. The Employment survey must be supplemented by two ad hoc subjects over an eight-year period, and no fewer than four are included for the Household Income and Living Conditions survey under this programme.

The flexibility is increased through the establishment of pilot or feasibility studies, which will not only allow new user demands to be incorporated, but also to test them before a possible move to production on a permanent basis. New topics tested in pilot studies have already been put forward for FRIBS, such as international trade in services, commercial and residential real estate and even the environment and climate.

The deadlines for submitting statistics and data to Eurostat have been brought forward in some cases. The data relating to Household Income and Living Conditions should therefore be submitted before the end of the reference year, and at a finer geographical level, in order to better meet the expectations of decision-makers for the monitoring of regional policies. The poverty and social exclusion indicator (AROPE) will therefore now be calculated by Eurostat at the NUTS 2 level based on the detailed data submitted by the Member States. In the domain of business statistics, certain short-term indicators, such as turnover indices, will now be published on a monthly basis rather than quarterly.

This overhaul of the European legislation has major implications for statistical production. In France, this required heavy involvement by INSEE and the Ministerial Statistical Offices, as well as close consultation between the various stakeholders in order to bring the negotiations to a successful close (Box 2).

The first framework regulation on European farm statistics was adopted after 18 months of negotiations, which is reasonable in view of the average length of the legislative procedure (Figure 1). The negotiations for the other two framework regulations took significantly longer: almost three years of negotiations were needed for the two European co-legislators to reach a compromise agreement for IESS and almost two years of negotiations were needed for FRIBS. In the case of IESS, the Working Party on Statistics of the Council of the European Union needed to meet fifteen times between September 2016 and January 2019 before discussions were entered into with the European Parliament (compared to only ten meetings between March 2018 and January 2019 for FRIBS).

All in all, it took almost ten years to go from the preparation phase to the implementation of IESS, and seven years of preparation and negotiations for FRIBS.

Figure 1. Genesis of a Framework Regulation (FRIBS, IESS, IFS)

The difficulties encountered in bringing the negotiations on these European regulations to a successful close were primarily linked to the implementation of the new rules set out in the Treaty of Lisbon on the functioning of the European Union (2009). Indeed, a new legal architecture emerged during the course of these negotiations: a triptych made up of the framework regulation, delegated acts and implementing acts (Figure 2). In the words of the Treaty:

One major difficulty encountered in the negotiation of these various regulations is the uncertainty created by delegated acts. Criticism of delegated acts stems in part from the hybrid nature of these acts: non-legislative in terms of their format, since they are not adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, yet legislative in terms of their scope, as they allow legislative texts to be amended (Ouvrir dans un nouvel ongletGuilloud, 2011). Moreover, unlike implementing acts, delegated acts are not voted for by the European Statistical System Committee (ESS Committee): they therefore bring about a loss of influence for the NSIs, while at the same time strengthening the influence of the Commission (which receives the delegation) and the power of scrutiny of the European Parliament.

Figure 2. Architecture of European Legislation in the Field of Statistics

The Commission aims to ensure coverage for all of the major domains of European statistics with framework regulations; it will tend towards using delegated acts to supplement the basic acts, the content of which is fairly general by definition. This is a legitimate aim and the interests of the framework regulations are unanimously recognised within the ESS Committee. Although concerns have been raised in some Member States, the delegation is also seen as an instrument that enables the statistical output of the NSIs as much as is necessary without having to resort to repeated and lengthy legislative procedures.

Another new feature introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon is also causing some problems: this relates to trialogues – three-way meetings between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission. The main complaint being put forward by the NSIs is that Member States are often forced to choose between blocking the legislative process (e.g. on IESS) or accepting difficult compromises. While the NSIs are closely involved at an early stage in the preparation of the draft regulation (Box 2), the ESS Committee is not always kept well informed about the progress of the trialogue negotiations. To remedy this, the ESS Committee had suggested strengthening the links with the European Parliament rapporteurs responsible for the statistical regulations, with a view to facilitating the search for a compromise while preserving the foundations of statistics as described in the European Statistics Code of Practice.

Looking beyond the strengthening of its powers in the wake of the Treaty of Lisbon, the influence of various pressure groups and agencies is expressed through the European Parliament.

Among its proposed amendments to the IESS, the Parliament wished to authorise European agencies, which do not belong to the ESS, to produce statistics, by making it mandatory for Member States to provide them with samples or information for the purposes of sampling. The Parliament also showed itself willing to entrust agencies outside the ESS with the task of contributing to the production of European statistics, even though this role had previously been devolved solely to ESS stakeholders in accordance with the provisions of the 2009 Statistical Law and the European Statistics Code of Practice. The introduction of such an amendment therefore presented a major stumbling block to reaching a compromise on the text for the ESS Committee. The wording was finally adjusted to prevent the ESS from eventually being extended to include some of the Union’s agencies for the production of European statistics. Nevertheless, this risk has not been completely ruled out, since this assimilation of the European Union agencies and the European Statistical System is reflected, at the time of writing, in the amendments introduced by the Parliament in the draft multiannual statistical programme.

The extension of the coverage of these framework regulations was supported by the Parliament, which went on to suggest that the international trade in services and the calculation of financial indicators relating to companies could be better integrated into FRIBS. Similarly, the Parliament had hoped that the Time Use survey could be made mandatory. These provisions were among the most divisive issues that were heatedly discussed during the trialogues.

Faced with a changing and increasingly competitive external environment, the reduction of national resources dedicated to official statistics is making it more difficult for the NSIs to cope with the growing demand for statistics. While the delegation of powers to the Commission allows for the flexible adaptation of the statistical output of the NSIs, it has nevertheless given rise to major concerns during negotiations among Member States. A majority of them then wished to introduce safeguard clauses that restrict the number of topics and variables that can be added or modified, with a view to limiting the associated additional burdens. The Danish Statistical Office had led the revolt, together with the Dutch and Polish institutes: these three NSIs justified the establishment of such safeguards through their desire to better prioritise the ever-growing demands of the European Commission. The introduction of such restrictive clauses therefore reduces the anticipated benefits of the framework regulations, especially since their implementation procedures are complex or even unworkable.

The harmonisation of the production of social statistics, in terms of both the concepts and the methods used has, in some cases, been strongly contested by some Member States, which would without a doubt view this method of harmonisation via inputs as an obstacle to the national production of statistics on these same topics. Germany has long been opposed to the introduction of a common and compulsory structure for the Employment survey questionnaire, which was a significant factor in the stalling of the negotiations.

The exchange of confidential micro-data on business registers and the international trade in goods, one of the major innovations of FRIBS, has also been hotly disputed, particularly by Ireland, which considers this to be an infringement of statistical confidentiality.

An analysis of the three framework regulations adopted in 2018 and 2019 (Box 4) finally allows us to draw some broad outlines of the legal architecture of the new statistical framework regulations.

The basic act takes a modular approach (domains/topics/detailed topics/modules) to describing the general principles for the production of European statistics, while the delegated and implementing acts detail the procedures. During the course of the discussions held by the Council, an informal collective reference was gradually established:

The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission have entered into a Common Understanding in order to establish non-binding criteria to distinguish between delegated and implementing acts. These criteria, together with the case-law of the European Court of Justice, serve as guidelines for the co-legislators. Although the discussion regarding the scope of the delegated and implementing acts is sometimes difficult for the Council and in the trialogue with the Parliament, a certain amount of “case law” nevertheless tends to emerge during the drafting of framework regulations for the statistical sphere:

The negotiations associated with the framework regulations have also given rise to a gradual change in the positions of the Member States. A majority of them have therefore agreed that the topics and detailed topics should be described in the basic regulation and that the list of variables within each of the topics – the number of which may be limited by the basic regulation – should be defined by a delegated act. It is also now generally accepted that the topic and content of the supra-annual ad hoc surveys that accompany the annual surveys should be defined by a delegated act.

In addition, the ESS Committee can adopt implementing acts, primarily in order to define the technical specifications of the statistical variables, the content of quality reports, the submission formats and any other technical standards (in the case of the Employment survey, this goes a step further, as the detail and order of questions for the ILO module are also set by implementing acts, see Box 2 on IESS and Box 4).

The ongoing changes to the legislative framework for the European Statistical System has therefore resulted in the adoption of three framework regulations covering social, business and farming statistics. The foundations of a legal triptych have gradually emerged from the negotiations; this provides a basis on which the Commission (Eurostat) will be able to continue developing its future framework regulations. The texts are examined in different legal fora: the implementing acts are discussed by the ESS Committee, the delegated acts by the NSI experts and the legislative text by the Council and the Parliament. The simultaneous submission by Eurostat to the Member States of all of the draft texts making up the new legal triptych, prior to the discussions with the Council, would undoubtedly have improved the negotiation process. In the case of the FRIBS regulation, the Member States were therefore able to have different implementing measures at their disposal, which made it easier to reach a compromise, as can be seen from the shorter length of the negotiations with the Council.

Two other framework regulations are in preparation, one concerning agricultural production statistics and the second concerning population statistics. They will enrich the legal basis of the ESS, which will now be used to produce the majority of European statistics. This adaptation of the statistical system and its legislative basis contributes to better structuring the growing demand for statistics in major domains against a backdrop that is also marked by a reduction in resources. This change to the European statistical system creates a great deal of leverage for INSEE to adapt to economic and social developments on the one hand, and to the challenges raised by changes in the context of statistics at the national and European levels.