|
Select Committee on European Legislation First
Report
DANGEROUS PREPARATIONS: CLASSIFICATION, PACKAGING AND MARKETING |
23.1 The current dangerous preparations Directive[46] replaced three previous existing Community Directives on classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances with the objective that no dangerous preparations would be put on the market in Member States unless it complied with the provisions of the directive. The justification given by the Commission for the new proposal is the need to rationalise and consolidate the earlier directive and to extend its scope to cover formulated pesticides and intentional explosives. It also would include non-dangerous preparations on the grounds that this would facilitate the application of other provisions on packaging and safety data sheets to such chemicals. It is also proposed to introduce environmental classification and labelling requirements.
The Commission's proposal
23.2 The Commission points out that there are at present six Directives regulating this area and that their consolidation would have considerable benefits. It proposes that classification and labelling of plant protection products (PPPs) should be included but it is not clear to what extent this would involve requirements over and above those which already applying to such products. The Commission's Explanatory Memorandum indicates that "detailed rules for the application of the principle of labelling of Plant Protection Products need to be developed in accordance with Committee procedures of the present Directive". The requirements on packaging would be "without prejudice" to the special requirements on the packaging of PPPs in the present legislation which harmonises arrangements for placing them on the market. That Directive[47] would be subsumed within the new Directive which, the Commission considers, will improve the availability of detailed information in the form of Safety Data Sheet.
23.3 The new Directive will also include classification criteria for preparations "dangerous for the environment", which would seek to take into account the effects on the environment of dangerous substances contained in preparations, and would also propose criteria for the classification for the hazards to the environment of preparations containing ozone-depleting substances. There would be a number of additional proposals, including the setting of maximum concentrations to be taken into consideration in implementing the Directive.
23.4 The Commission recognises that the environmental hazard evaluation criteria will entail classifying and labelling products, and that providing such information would be an additional cost on classified products. It points out, however, that an important criterion would be that the number of environmentally dangerous products classified would not exceed the number of products classified as dangerous to human health. It argues that the benefit of the revised Directive would include "preventing the market being flooded with products that are considered dangerous". The Commission also claims that the proposed Directive would reduce the risks of accidents, make users more aware of choices and bring about "the elimination of redundant costs bound to existing divergent regulatory constraints and the impact on the circulation of these products". We assume this verbiage means that harmonisation will reduce costs.
The Government's view
23.5 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 27 September the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment (Mr Clappison) highlights three aspects of the proposed extensions. First, the Minister says that the phrase "intentional explosives" would not cover munitions or fireworks as these are not "preparations". While the hazard labelling for pesticides would bring those into line with general chemicals, the Government is consulting the pesticide industry to ensure that there would be no unintended effects.
23.6 A second concern is the environmental classification in the labelling requirement, where the Parliamentary Under-Secretary considers that it will be necessary to negotiate derogations to avoid restrictions on labelled concentrated preparations. This might be more acceptable, as they require less packaging and have lower transport costs than diluted non-labelled preparations.
23.7 The third aspect is the paperwork required for non-dangerous preparations. This appears to be included in order to meet concerns by the Nordic Member States, and would allow users of apparently non-dangerous preparations to obtain further information in the form of Safety Data Sheets. It would, however, impose significant costs which might fall disproportionately on small and medium-sized firms. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary concludes "it may be possible to secure agreement to a more proportionate solution for this final extension, in line with current UK requirements. However, if Government was unable to secure such a change it would resist the proposal".
23.8 The Government has provided us with a cost benefit assessment, which indicates that the total ten year cost would be in the broad band of £11-88 million.
Conclusion
23.9 As with many proposals to consolidate and simplify, the Commission appears to be adopting more onerous requirements and the justification for some of the measures put forward, for example in relation to the paperwork requirement for non-dangerous preparations, is not clear. There appears to be scope for considerable improvement in the cost/benefit balance and we would hope that these improvements will be forthcoming during the negotiations on the Commission proposal. We note with approval that the industries concerned are being consulted both at Community level and by Member States, and we would like the Government to keep us informed if there are any major changes in the proposal. However, we do not recommend debate, and clear the document. 46. (88/379/EEC); OJ No. L 187, 16.7.88, p.10. Back 47. 91/414/EEC; OJ No. L 230, 19.8.91, p.1. Back
|
| |
| © Parliamentary copyright 1996 | Prepared 12th November 1996 |