Estonia and the European Union have been promising a system to reduce red tape for a while now. In Estonia, there has been talk of a one-for-one approach, while Europe wants to lift two bureaucratic obligations for every new one. Why are you going along with it, and what is the problem we're trying to solve?

Entrepreneurs have pointed out two key issues that significantly disrupt their productivity and operations. First, the state frequently and extensively changes laws, and second, the administrative burden on businesses is excessively high. In Estonia, nearly all businesses are small or medium-sized enterprises. If they are required to meet the same bureaucratic demands as large companies in the European Union, it is understandably beyond their capacity. There is a substantial difference between fulfilling the same requirements with a company of three employees versus one with 3,000 employees.

But why abolish just one thing for every new one? Some countries' ambitions go as far as throwing out three rules for every new regulation?

When the coalition agreement was updated this summer, the focus was on measures that save people time for smarter and more enjoyable activities than dealing with the state. One of the agreed-upon initiatives was the "one in, one out" principle. This approach, which has been successfully used in Estonia before, acts as an enforcement mechanism encouraging officials to critically assess what can be eliminated or repealed. Over time, more and more regulations have been added. By comparison, the Lübeck Law, which governed Estonia for over 600 years, fit onto just a few pages. Today, the legal framework is significantly more extensive.

But why are we stopping half-way? Why aren't we aiming for less bureaucracy in a situation where a "one-in, one-out" approach effectively leaves us with the same amount of red tape?

Mathematically, what you said is absolutely correct, and this is by no means the only goal. The Ministry of Justice has historically been the ministry responsible for ensuring that the state is as lean, reasonable and minimally burdensome to people as possible.

It is clear that some enforcement mechanisms need to be established – voluntary measures have not led to improvements. To involve all ministries, I sent a request at the end of summer to various ministries and other stakeholders, asking them to contribute ideas. The "one in, one out" principle has caused the most confusion – ministries are not happy with it, but business organizations are very pleased. So, we need to take the initiative forward.

One reason for this interview was feedback from Ahti Kuningas, secretary general of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, according to whom your plan rather concentrates on dialing back legislative drafting and creates more paperwork in the end.

If an official refers to efforts to rein in legislative drafting as pointless paperwork, that is on them. I do not share such a corrupt cast of mind and certainly do not agree with the statement. Moreover, I cannot agree with the claim that members of the Riigikogu should not have an easier time reviewing draft legislation. This second criticism, in my opinion, is unjustifiably arrogant toward the Riigikogu. The idea that reducing and limiting legislative drafting somehow amounts to malicious paperwork is something I cannot support – I do not think in such cynical categories. It is truly unfortunate if the Ministry of Economic Affairs is the one harboring such thoughts.

Looking at this year alone, where usually about a hundred draft bills pass through the Ministry of Justice annually, by the end of October, we had already reached 155 – a third more than usual. It is clear that legislative drafting continues to grow unchecked, and it must somehow be curbed because people cannot keep up with this constant flow.

Additionally, remnants of outdated provisions still exist, which are either no longer necessary today or could be dispensed with entirely. For politicians, and sometimes even officials, it is often an easy solution: addressing problems by creating a new rule. For example, we might introduce a regulation requiring a report on how much of something has been produced, sold or used. Then we track a trend, and following that trend seems to be the solution to the problem. But this is not the case. We also have a range of other regulations that could easily be repealed without adding any unnecessary bureaucracy.

Allow me to give an example. The government wants to curb alcohol consumption. Health Minister Riina Sikkut recently presented some ideas. A series of new regulations are planned for alcohol shops, down to fixed-term alcohol sale licenses etc. Would that mean removing other restrictions from the same or other fields? For instance, will we have to give up a preschool education regulation if we want to add rules for liquor stores?

Absolutely. If something can be eliminated, we should take that path. We should never start weighing whether the exchange is equal or unequal, as that would indeed add more bureaucracy. Simply establishing the principle that we can remove something at all is already a big step forward.

Let's take the example of grocery stores. While I'm not fully familiar with all the specific requirements, we still have the so-called banana curvature rule in effect. And we continue discarding perfectly edible food, which not only creates additional work but is also a dreadful waste of food. Even if something doesn't perfectly meet standards – an egg is too large or a banana too curved – we all understand these are entirely respectable and edible products. We shouldn't impose obligations on stores to discard such items.

Külli Taro, head of scientific transfer at the TalTech Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, recently said that while several countries and the European Commission have experimented with such one-for-one rules, it hasn't really worked anywhere. Do you know of any examples where it has paid off?

We have analyzed why these attempts have failed in the past, and the reason is that they were voluntary. Voluntary efforts indeed create additional work for officials – they have to search for something to remove, justify its removal and officially repeal it. In this sense, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications is correct: some rules may have been created with good intentions in the past, but now require thorough analysis to determine whether they truly represent the bare minimum we need to enforce, or whether we can move forward without these rules. This process is also psychologically challenging. For this to work, some degree of enforcement must be introduced.

The plan is to amend the good legislative drafting framework, giving the Ministry of Justice the authority to reject a draft bill if it does not include the removal of something from the so-called tail of the draft. Introducing such enforcement instead of relying on voluntary measures should lead to success.

Taro pointed out that various burdensome requirements are not of the same weight. For example, filling in a single unnecessary line on an application form might take just a minute and require no additional effort, whereas a new information requirement or a change in tax regulations could mean additional investments or extensive work for a company. How do you measure that?

Everything must be done with common sense, and we must avoid going to extremes. By adhering to these two principles, we can skip any additional measurement processes, as doing so would likely require hiring ten more people, which would only lead to more bureaucracy.

If we consider that nearly 160 draft bills have already been introduced this year, and each likely contains more than one new requirement or obligation, then if this new principle had been in effect, at least 160 requirements would already have been removed. This is undoubtedly better than adding those 160 requirements. By moving forward sensibly – with the "one in, one out" approach – without wasting time, energy or taxpayers' money on weighing every detail, we can confidently progress toward reducing the overall number of requirements.

There is indeed a risk that relatively insignificant and low-cost requirements might be repealed, only to be replaced by new, more expensive ones. This could lead to a situation where entrepreneurs feel things have gotten worse – having to hire even more accountants, compliance officers and other administrative staff. How do you ensure that this principle does not inadvertently increase the overall burden rather than reduce it?

The answer is two-fold. First, it is undoubtedly better to remove hundreds of small but unnecessary requirements, even if they are minor, than to do nothing at all. Eliminating such redundant rules is already a step in the right direction.

Second, the package for reducing administrative burdens comprises several components. One of these is a task that already falls under the Ministry of Justice but requires further refinement: establishing how the ministry can reject draft bills that do not align with the spirit of the Constitution. The Constitution fundamentally dictates that no new rules should be created without first clearly defining the problem they aim to address. Some draft bills come forward where it remains unclear what specific issue they seek to solve. Therefore, the first step must be to determine whether a problem exists in society and, if so, to precisely describe its nature.

The next step is to identify the most effective way to solve this problem. Does it require adding administrative burdens, or can it be addressed in some other way?

Lastly, once solutions are identified, it is crucial to select those that least infringe on freedoms, such as entrepreneurial freedom, or those that minimize the time people need to spend on unnecessary bureaucracy.

You are undoubtedly aware of how creatively these matters can be approached, especially when it concerns public health – even to the point where a user manual might be required for operating a coffee pot, despite the fact that nearly everyone already has a coffee maker or kettle at home. You know well how creative Estonian officials can be, and this is by no means a criticism.

That is precisely why the Ministry of Justice needs these additional mechanisms to reject draft bills that stand out for their excessive creativity. We all understand that reading a coffee pot manual does not solve any real problem – such as people being unable to use a coffee pot or kettle at work. This is not an actual issue.

If someone were to claim that employees starting a job have never seen a kettle and need to read a manual, I would instead look toward our education system to identify what went wrong that such basic knowledge was missed.

When will these plans manifest as action?

For the remainder of this year, we will continue gathering feedback. At the beginning of next year, we will organize several engagement events where people will sit down together and brainstorm the best solutions. Following that, we will proceed with the necessary legal amendments to ensure the rules are clear and to effectively reduce the burden on individuals and businesses.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!