Steve Elliott, Chief Executive of Chemical Industries Association
Why Europe matters to one of the UK’s most important industrial sectors?
 |
| Steve Elliott, CIA Chief Executive |
The industry body in the UK is the Chemical Industries Association (CIA). The 150 members of CIA range from large multinationals, to SMEs and university spin offs.
Steve Elliott, CIA Chief Executive is based in London but spends a great deal of his time in Brussels because the majority of policy, legislation and regulation that impacts the chemical industry originates from the institutions of the European Union. The chemical industry is highly regulated due to the hazardous nature of some substances and process; the biggest piece of legislation applying to the industry is REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation of Chemicals) but amongst many others include the Waste Framework Directive, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), employment regulations, EU Emissions Trading Scheme – all of which are European initiated..
In Brussels the CIA works with a number of partners and the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) to ensure that the views of the chemical industry are represented to the right people at the right time.
How do you see the role of CIA within the EU?
I see the role of the CIA in our European work as providing a pragmatic voice for the UK chemical industry within Brussels with the aim of ensuring that the UK remains a good place to do business.
Our lobbying is based on four principles:
• Regulation is essential for societal acceptance
• A constructive relationship with legislators, regulators and policy-makers respecting their mandate and agenda
• Solution based, not pure criticism
• Building relationships with all stakeholders including NGO’s
The CIA tries to work with all stakeholders – trade unions, NGO’s, academia etc as well as politicians and officials - to find workable solutions on issues such a chemical safety and emissions trading. We also provide a lot of help to our members to understand and comply with EU regulations.
What was your first specific involvement with the EU and how has this evolved?
My first proper emersion into dealing with the institutions of the European Union was with REACH. REACH started as an idea in a Ministerial office in Westminster and went on to become the biggest piece of environmental legislation that Brussels has produced.
The early days of REACH were grim. Industry, which was already highly regulated, did not make enough effort to engage constructively with the Commission and Parliament as they were deciding how to overhaul the existing regulations. As a result many proposals were far removed from the realities of operating a chemical business and the ability of industry to substitute substances.
The UK industry has made enormous progress and we have long-realised that in order to have legislation that is implementable we have to explain how chemicals are manufactured, the dangers or rushing substitution, the high standards we have in place and why chemicals are so vital to our every day lives. Alongside this we have always respected that politicians are democratically elected, therefore having a very legitimate mandate and officials have an important job to do.
The industry has also made much greater efforts to work with others to find areas of consensus, for example we were able to sign agreements with Greenpeace and the Trade Unions on REACH. We learnt that you have to continually work at building links with the European Parliament and Commission rather than waiting for issues to arise and expect to be heard.
Problems and successes
The EU has had many successes to open up trade between European countries and allow the flow of necessary skills into the UK and the CIA has supported many of the measures to improve employment relations.
However there are examples of where EU regulations have created uneven playing fields for businesses within the European Union due to varying levels of enforcement by Member States. There are also times when legislation arrives from Brussels it can be so complicated the implementation process is far from clear. For example, REACH still has many question marks for companies on how they should comply with their responsibilities. It is also not yet clear how the authorities plan to implement the rules on chemicals and finished goods imported into the EU.
Part of the REACH process establishes the European Chemicals Agency, based in Helsinki. The Agency will manage the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction processes for chemical substances to ensure consistency across the European Union. These processes are designed to provide additional information on chemicals, to ensure their safe use, and to ensure competitiveness of the European industry. In its decision-making the Agency will take the best available scientific and technical data and socio-economic information into account. It will also provide information on chemicals and technical and scientific advice. As ever with a new organisation everyone is trying to tell it how to do its job. What we need is for people to let it get on with it and for it to quickly establish good credentials then I think we will see a much better understanding from society - and from industry - on the ‘European chemical debate’.
European Parliament election campaign
The European Elections could have a significant impact on how we influence in Brussels if the political groups change drastically, particularly if the Conservatives do withdraw from the EPP. We hope that UK MEPs will continue to hold important committee positions.
We will be investing considerable time in getting to know the new UK MEPs. The first message we will want to communicate is the importance of risk rather than hazard based decision-making.
Have you influenced or been influenced significantly by a specific piece of legislation?
REACH is the biggest piece of chemical legislation that the industry has ever had to implement. The industry has been working very hard to ensure that the legislation is workable and will achieve its goals. Whilst there are many ways in which we would have liked to see REACH improved, industry was able to influence the how the legislation will impact chemical manufacturers.
The future: how do you see things evolving in the next 5 - 10 years?
There is an alarming move away from risk based to hazard based policy making which in the long run will have a poor impact on the quality of EU legislation, the competitiveness of the EU and on the quality of life of EU citizens.
It is right that we should be careful to protect health and environment from uncontrolled technological development but this continued move towards an overly cautious approach will hold up beneficial progress and discourage development and innovation within the EU.
Do you have a wish for the future from the EU?
I would really like to see greater transparency around how policy and legislation is initiated and who and how influences it. Even as someone who spends a good deal of time in Brussels, it can still feel very complex. This probably explains why the institutions of the EU seem so distance from the citizens they represent and work for. The EU, which actually works very hard to make itself transparent, still feels hidden and I am sure that is due to the sheer size of what it is trying to do and the endless processes it goes through. I think the next 5 years and beyond ought to be about simplification and communication – a big part of which is engagement with stakeholders, not just industries like mine but the 500 million citizens who live in the Union..
I feel for the EU because the chemical industry was big and complex and did not engage properly. As a result no one knew who we were or realised our importance and therefore no one particularly cared what happened to us or trusted us. It is not a good position to be in.
The EU would win confidence from industry if it tackles the issue of the quality of impact assessments. Often based on poor evidence, badly constructed and lacking industry consultation or input, impact assessments can give a very skewed idea as to the real consequences of regulations.
On a personal level I hope the EU and the increasing international nature of business will mean the UK finally tackles the language barrier. Official business in Brussels is all in English but having studied languages I know what a difference it can make to talk to someone in their own language - even if it is only to show you have made the effort.