MARKETING AND USE OF AZOCOLOURANTS
(20847)
14251/99
COM(99) 620
|
Draft Directive amending for the nineteenth time Council Directive
76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain
dangerous substances and preparations (azocolourants).
|
| Legal base:
| Article 95 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: |
Environment, Transport and the Regions
|
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letters of 22 March and 11 July 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 23-viii (1999-2000), paragraph 14 (9 February 2000)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared (decision reported on 9 February 2000)
|
Background
8.1 Azocolourants are used to dye materials,
textiles, leather, ink and other products, and are subdivided
into azo(pigments) and azodyes. The latter can break down under
particular conditions to form amines, some of which are carcinogenic.
Consequently, although some Member States have already taken national
action to ban the dyes in question, and although their use has
effectively been stopped in the rest of the Community through
voluntary action by industry, the Commission believes that legislative
action should now be taken at Community level. It has therefore
proposed a ban on the marketing and use of those azodyes which
can break down into one of a list of 21 carcinogenic amines.
8.2 As we noted in our Report of 9 February
2000, the Government considers that the ban is justified in terms
of the available scientific advice, and it is strongly supported
by the dyestuffs industry as it consolidates their voluntary action.
However, the Government went on to register one procedural reservation,
in that eight of the 21 amines listed in the proposal have yet
to be formally classified as carcinogens under the relevant Community
system. Consequently, the UK would be seeking to have the eight
unclassified amines withdrawn from the proposal and submitted
for urgent review, with any newly-classified amines then being
included in the ban via a technical adaptation of the Directive.
The Government also said that a Regulatory Impact Assessment was
under preparation, but that initial assessments indicated that
both the costs and benefits of the proposal were likely to be
low, as industry had long anticipated the measure and was already
using substitutes.
8.3 In the conclusion to our Report, we
said that we had no concerns over the substance of the proposal,
and that we were therefore clearing it. However, we added that
we would be concerned if the UK's quite proper wish to ensure
that the correct carcinogenic classification procedures have been
followed were to lead to a delay in applying these restrictions
to substances identified as carrying a risk. Nor were we clear
to what extent our concern would in practice be met by the statement
in the Explanatory Memorandum that the Government's overall approach
to the proposal will " be guided by the need to secure high
levels of protection for workers and consumers". We said
that we would therefore welcome clarification from the Minister
on these two points. Also, we added that, since the Government
had observed that early indications suggested this dossier was
not a priority for the Portuguese Presidency, we would like to
know whether it intended to press the Presidency to bring forward
discussions on it.
Minister's letters of 22 March and 11 July 2000
8.4 We have since received two letters from
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of
the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty). In the
first, dated 22 March 2000, he said that, whilst the Government
would endeavour to ensure, as a matter of principle, that the
correct Community classification procedures were followed prior
to the adoption of the proposal, it proposed to vote in favour
of the measure if this could not be achieved in time. He said
that, although it did not seem as though this subject would be
a priority for the Portuguese Presidency, the Government understood
that the French Presidency was more likely to take it up, and
that the UK would be pressing them to do so.
8.5 In his most recent letter of 11 July
2000, the Minister has enclosed an initial Regulatory Impact Assessment,
which he says will be updated during the negotiating process.
However, he confirms that, as previously indicated, the costs
and benefits arising are likely to be small, due to the action
already taken voluntarily by the dyestuffs industry to limit the
importation and use of the azodyes which would be affected by
this proposal.
Conclusion
8.6 We are grateful to the Minister for
this further information, which we are reporting to the House,
but which does not affect our earlier clearance of this proposal.
|
