I’ve just re-watched an old Channel 4 documentary on how the first EU wide clean air law got through in 1997. The 3 episodes follow the adoption of Directive 1999/30/EC.
It still is the most realistic fly on the wall series I have watched on how EU law really is passed.
I did not re-watch it to see my far younger self with hair on his head. I wanted to see if the fundamentals of good lobbying, campaigning and law-making had changed over the years. I was fortunate enough to work for Anita Pollack MEP, the British S&D Rapporteur for the passage of the proposal.
Some Lessons from the 1st Clean Air Directive
- Good law-making depends on thorough preparation by the Commission in close consultation with the Member States, scientists, industry and NGOs. The time invested at the start makes the political passage through the Council and Parliament far easier and speedier.
- Good officials make a lot of difference. The file was blessed with a great team of experts from DG Environment, the British Presidency, Council, and the EP’s Environment Committee secretariat.
- Passing laws is a lot of work. It’s a 60 hour week (on a good week) for the duration of the passage of the file.
- Even in 1997, most of the work was done by email and phone calls. Meetings are often there to formalise an agreement that’s been reached before.
- Trust is essential. If the EP, Council Presidency and Commission trust each other, a lot can be done. Without it, you are grinding progress out.
- You need to know the rules of procedure. It is the first time I met Richard Corbett, then a political adviser to the S&D group, as he was the font of all procedural knowledge. His advice was priceless for getting the proposal through in record time.
- The interests, both industry, local government, and NGOs, who got the most came in early, provided clear and concise evidence and solutions, and were civil and honest throughout. I learned early that people playing games, uncloseted misogynists and having a loose affinity with the truth, did not get what they wanted.
- You need to learn a lot very quickly. There is a lot of information to digest and present so it makes sense. Information that is clear and timely gets taken up more easily than most.
- We were behind the science. We did not pass controls on PM 2.5 because the science was not equivocal. We were wrong.
- It is good to work with the best experts you can. We worked closely with the Boston, MA, USA based Health Effects Institute. It was great to know that the science being used to support some costly public policy choices had gone through peer review from hell.
- Political leadership and good people count a lot. Without Anita Pollack MEP, Ken Collins MEP, DG Environment’s Grant Lawrence, Prudencio Perrera, Peter Gammeltoft, Lynne Edwards, and the UK Presidency’s Pete Betts, I doubt the law would have got onto the books.
- The role of the Chair of the Environment Committee, Sir Ken Collins, was key. We received a smooth passage through the committee and plenary.
- You are never sure before a vote whether you are going to win. A lot of talks across party lines are needed.
- Events can work in your favour. On the day the proposal was being voted on in Strasbourg, the city had a very bad air pollution episode. It helped bring more MEPs into the winning coalition.
- Enforcement of air pollution standards is still the biggest challenge. Passing new laws that are not complied with is not a good way to go.
If you want to effectively influence legislation it is a good movie to watch. You may pick up somethings useful.