A clash of cultures

Date: 26/02/1998

Industry has yet to grasp the growing power of the European Parliament, reports Rory Watson THE European Parliament's overwhelming support for tougher measures to ensure cleaner fuel for motor vehicles by 2005 is a sign of its growing legislative confidence - and one which EU governments and industry cannot afford to ignore.

For many MEPs, last week's decision by the Parliament to insist on mandatory limits on fuel and emissions in the Union's 'Auto-Oil' programme, rather than accept the non-binding standards agreed by governments, was a defining moment for the institution.

"There have been a number of key dates in the Parliament's development. The packaging directive in the last parliament was one. Everyone learnt lessons from that. Now Auto-Oil is another," said British Socialist MEP David Bowe. "It is a foretaste of what will happen when the Amsterdam Treaty is ratified and we have even wider legislative powers."

Bowe is convinced that the extension of the Union's co-decision procedure, under which MEPs and governments jointly agree EU laws, will greatly increase the Parliament's authority and make ministers realise that they cannot legislate in isolation.

Viewed from the perspective of governments, the Parliament's decision to demand mandatory, rather than optional limits by 2005 does not just reflect a fundamental difference of opinion over the best way to tackle air pollution. It is also perceived as an internal battle within the Union as MEPs try to elbow their way into the heart of decision-making.

Finnish Green MEP Heidi Hautala who, along with German Socialist Bernd Lange has played a leading role in shaping the Parliament's opinion in the complex Auto-Oil debate, flatly denies that institutional sensibilities are at stake.

"What we decided has a solid foundation. I would be the last person to use the question of air quality to fight an institutional battle," she insisted, after her strategy was overwhelmingly endorsed by her parliamentary colleagues.

The Parliament and EU governments will now have to negotiate with each other, with each side coming under pressure to make enough concessions to produce a final version of the legislation which both can endorse.

Whether the mandatory limits for 2005 will survive this process remains to be seen. But the Parliament's decision to support them has already taken MEPs into new territory.

Under the original Auto-Oil programme, the European Commission, along with the auto and oil industries, ran a three-year scheme to identify road transport measures designed to achieve public health-based air quality targets at the lowest cost to society.

Although critics felt that a greater cross-section of views should have been canvassed, there was general support for the Commission's attempts to involve industry and outside views directly in the standard-setting process.

Under the proposals drawn up by the Commission under Auto-Oil I, the limits laid down for the year 2000 would be compulsory, but those for the period between 2000 and 2005 would - for the time being at least -simply be targets which member states should aim to achieve.

Meanwhile, a second Auto-Oil programme, involving a wider range of participants, is now under way to examine the level of vehicle emission reductions and environmental improvements to fuel required by the year 2005 and beyond.

MEPs want to speed up this process, laying down immediately the mandatory limits to be achieved by the middle of the next decade.

If the Parliament's amendments emerge intact from the legislative tunnel, MEPs will, in effect, have taken the decision the Commission was seeking to conclude via the consultative programme.

"There is some credit in the idea of all parts of society coming together with the Commission to see what can be done, but it should not be used to stop legislation," insisted Hautala. "When you see two industries [oil producers and car manufacturers] at war with each other, how can you reach objective results and why should we as legislators wait? You have to choose a political line. We felt there was enough evidence to settle the matter. So we did, and governments will have to decide how to react."

It is not the first time that MEPs have intervened to lay down compulsory standards which they believe industry should follow, but it is certainly the most politically significant.

While critics of the Parliament's powers dislike the trend, supporters argue that the greater certainty which legislation brings can actually benefit industry.

"If there is to be legislation, then the sooner industry knows about it, the better. It allows it to plan ahead. Otherwise, it could mean investment decisions, research programmes and contracts with suppliers being delayed while legislators wrangle," said one veteran Parliament watcher.

Some parliamentarians hope that last week's Auto-Oil vote will help establish the institution's reputation more widely as a maker rather than just a destroyer of EU legislation.

"The Parliament got the wrong sort of publicity and was only seen as a legislature when it rejected things such as proposed rules on landfill, voice telephony and biotechnology. I hope that will now change," said a long-standing Euro MP.

The latest anti-pollution measures also offer some valuable lessons for industry on how best to influence the Union's decision-making process.

Many MEPs believe that the oil industry, which is the strongest critic of the new limits, relied too heavily on its traditional contacts with the Commission and failed to understand the nature of the Parliament and the mood of its members.

Claims by the European Petroleum Industry Association that politicians "who hold extreme views on the Auto-Oil proposals" were in danger of undermining the achievements of sound environmental legislation and that the Parliament's proposals would add "an exorbitant 30-40 billion ecu" to the cost of the measures proposed by the Council of Ministers failed to win over MEPs.

By contrast, says Bowe, car manufacturers played their hand much more skilfully.

"The car industry saw what was coming and grasped the process better," he said. "Auto-Oil also drew in Japanese manufacturers who lobbied for the first time. They were initially very cautious about the Union's legislative process, but they were happy with the outcome."

Bowe and many of his parliamentary colleagues privately use the politically incorrect acronym TITS to describe the most effective lobbying tactics for influencing MEPs' deliberations.

"It stands for timing, information, targeting and sensitivity, and I wish all lobbyists had that. Sometimes industry comes along in a panic, devoid of these skills, and acts like a bull in a china shop," he explained.

His comments highlight one of the main difficulties which industrial sectors face when forced to pay attention to forthcoming EU legislation.

"Many professional lobbyists are now taking on staff such as MEPs' former assistants. They have contacts with the Parliament and understand its atmosphere and culture. Industry cannot have that because it has its own culture," he explained.

David Earnshaw, director of EU government affairs at SmithKline Beecham in Brussels, who is now waiting for the next round in lengthy procedures to establish Union rules on the patenting of biotechnological inventions, agrees that specialist knowledge of how the process works is essential.

He also believes that it is unrealistic to expect people in industry to understand the implications of parliamentary procedure. But he points out that this - and, in particular, rules on what amendments may be tabled by MEPs during a second reading of proposed legislation - is crucial to the outcome.

"Basically, the rules are designed to build as big a majority as possible in the first reading and to sustain this through the process. Hence, the increasing importance of the first reading where the Parliament states its maximum position and can then negotiate downwards," he said.

"Unless you are in government affairs and politics you cannot understand that logic."

Major feature in which writer says that industry has yet to grasp the growing power of the EP.