The fight against terrorism may have cast a shadow over the UK's presidency of the EU. Yet Andrew Laidlaw calls on solicitors to throw their weight behind the drive for better regulation

The Brits have made it half-way through their EU presidency, but with the generous summer break in Brussels, it probably does not feel like the mid-way stage.


As with the best-laid plans, events overtook the carefully prepared six-month agenda right at its start. The bombings in London shifted priorities to the anti-terrorism and criminal justice agenda and saw a real acceleration in the pace of work, all before the UK had a moment to settle into its role.


Other priority areas have not seen the same zeal or willingness to forge agreements. The proposed services directive, for instance, is still waiting to be voted on in the European Parliament, leaving the UK little scope to make any headway by the end of the year.


The UK has received criticism for its 'quiet' presidency, with commentators citing a lack of notable achievements thus far. But the real tests may be still to come. For example, last week's EU-accession negotiations with Turkey - which see the union begin talks to bring the first majority Muslim nation into the club &150; are being viewed so far as at least a qualified success. There is also great pressure on the Prime Minister Tony Blair to broker a deal on the forthcoming seven-year budget before the end of his six months at the helm.


Amid all this discussion of success and failure, the European Commission succeeded in stealing the UK's limelight in another of its priority areas - that of better regulation. In announcing a cull of apparently absurd EU proposals, European Commission President José Barroso's 'bonfire of the inanities' has grabbed the headlines.


The rhetoric seems to have played well to the popular perceptions of Brussels and the EU - out-of-touch bureaucrats with little better to do than dream up ways of making our cucumbers straighter and our bananas curvier. But is it anything more than a few cheap headlines? This is not the first time the commission has withdrawn proposals - apparently pulling more than 100 last year.


As amusing as binning provisions of the 'sunshine directive' may sound, there is a more serious message and a bigger picture to the commission's plan to withdraw dozens of pending proposals.


In no uncertain terms, at current rates, the EU will fail to meet its economic and employment targets, set for 2010 as part of the Lisbon agenda. Business points to red tape, administrative burdens and unnecessary regulation in the EU as hampering its competitiveness. The commission's president seems willing to address such concerns, albeit at the risk of alienating his own officials.


However, putting a stop to a number of proposals that are not yet on the statute book will not do much to change the growing burden of compliance with existing legislation. Fortunately, further initiatives from the commission to simplify existing legislation are on their way. All legislation will be screened in this root-and-branch review, with a view to modernisation, whether it be consolidation, modification or repeal. Work continues to improve the rigour of impact assessments conducted on draft proposals.


While the Barroso Commission cannot take all the credit for some of these initiatives, its political commitment seems to be firmer than that of its predecessors. The commission's vice-president charged with enforcing the better regulation agenda, Günter Verheugen, confirmed this recently in Edinburgh at a conference on better regulation organised by the UK presidency and in the European Parliament last month.


Yet he was keen to stress the importance and rationale of EU legislation - quite often it removes or harmonises similar, and yet divergent, sets of national rules. Done properly, it should remove administrative burdens and unnecessary barriers, and facilitate business within the internal market.


Better regulation is not no regulation. We must have an EU that brings forward measures that are 'fit for purpose', and there was no shortage of suggestions in Edinburgh on how to do so. In particular, the UK's Better Regulation Task Force adopted a report entitled Get Connected - Effective Engagement in the EU, setting out recommendations for improving the EU's consultative processes.


It notes, as did the conference, that the business community must be more active in responding to consultations, better organised and more actively engaged in general. The same can be said for the legal community.


The more legal aspects of bad law- making, such as poor drafting, the use of vague or alien legal terms, or contradictions between legislation, can have an equally negative impact on the competitiveness of business and merit attention. Bad EU legislation can lead member states to gold-plate during implementation. Even if well intentioned, this can add to the number of hoops businesses have to jump through.


That is why the Law Society has extended its better law-making programme to the EU legislature and intends to make its own recommendations for improvement. The way in which legislation is drafted, methods of consultation and the use of non-legislative instruments (such soft law, self-regulation) are of real relevance to practitioners and the good functioning of the EU legal system.


This is also why the Law Society has invited internal market commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, to Chancery Lane in November to discuss with practitioners issues of bad legislation.


The quality of EU legislation will not simply improve on its own and solicitors must play their role in shaping its future.


Andrew Laidlaw is a European policy executive in the Law Society's Brussels office. For more information, e-mail: brussels@lawsociety.org.uk