Wider debate should bring better policies

Date: 03/10/1996

By Tim Jones

THE European Union is going through a second 'green revolution' - a flood of consultative Green Papers.

While the advocates of an aggressive European Commission leading from the front may be disappointed, American industry in Brussels thinks it is no bad thing.

“The Commission is going back to square one and looking more closely at policy assumptions,” says William Seddon-Brown, chairman of the EU Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce.

“That gives us an opportunity to influence the way the debate is going before it is frozen into draft legislation, which is much more difficult to handle. Some basic policy areas are being thought out more carefully rather than being rushed into extra legislation.”

Since Jacques Santer left Luxembourg to become Commission president at the beginning of 1995, the number of legislative proposals in many areas have slowed to a trickle and been replaced by rounds of consultations.

In the environmental area, proposals to harmonise member states' approach to liability, tighten implementation of EU laws and harmonise green taxes have been slow to arrive.

On the taxation side, Internal Market Commissioner Mario Monti has been careful to win over as many people as possible within the Commission and outside before tabling proposals.

While some critics have become frustrated at this approach, Seddon-Brown believes it should be welcomed.

“When a big machine like the EU is having second thoughts, it can take a very long time to change direction. It is a bit like a petroleum tanker - when you want to change one degree it takes 25 minutes for it to happen,” he says, but adds: “To be fair, many Commissioners recognise the signs and want to go back to square one and reassess policy.”

Seddon-Brown argues that Monti's reluctance to charge into battle for new taxation proposals which would not have a hope of being accepted is wise.

“He wants to take a fresh look at the whole structure of taxation and this will take some time. The answer is not a proliferation of new specific legislation, but questioning whether we have the policy direction right, what we already have on the table and whether this is appropriate,” he insists.

This reassessment of policy aims is also having an impact on the EU committee itself, which operates as “the voice of US industry or - as we like to call it - European industry of American parentage in the European Union”.

The committee has always carried out its monitoring and lobbying tasks through a myriad of specialist sub-committees and working groups, involving as many as 650 people, many of whom are specialists.

“What is interesting now is that the simple black and white issues in a small box are disappearing and there are more horizontal issues,” says Seddon-Brown.

In the past, the committee structure would pick a subject, such as the environment or financial services, identify draft legislation and attempt to influence its shaping. The question of measures to limit car emissions, for instance, would go straight to the environment group.

But this is changing. “Our classic box-type organisation is having to evolve as the market itself and the EU is evolving,” says Seddon-Brown. “Today is a very interesting time in the EU and there are many things that cut across the board - everything from the Intergovernmental Conference through to specific policies like the environment - where the Commission is going back to square one and asking whether it has got the balance right.”

The committee presses its message on the Commission as early as it can within the decision-making process and, according to Seddon-Brown, is considered to be one of the most quietly effective lobby groups in town.

“We are seen as a good resource in terms of knowledge and capabilities, and I think we have a good reputation for providing timely comments and information,” he says.

Seddon-Brown maintains that, contrary to popular belief, lobbying in Brussels is not so different from that in Washington. It is true that the US capital has more real executive power, with Congress' budgetary competence and the president's responsibility for foreign policy contrasting sharply with the Commission's and Parliament's reliance on national governments, but parallels do exist.

“Just as you have more than one part of the US administration involved when it comes to changing legislation, so you have different parts of the Commission and the whole cycle of approval through the institutions of the EU,” says Seddon-Brown.

“Many American companies are aggressive and competitive by nature, which might lead to some impatience, but on the whole the process of getting a message across, getting access and asking people to listen in the EU is the same as in Washington.”