Examination of Witnesses (Questions 150
- 159)
MONDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2004
COMMISSIONER ERKKI
LIIKANEN AND
MR NICHOLAS
BURGE
Q150 Chairman: Welcome. Thank you
very much for seeing us. We are carrying out a formal inquiry
into chemicals and new legislation and so on. We produce a report
which goes to the Government, they reply, then we have a debate
and the minister replies. So we are moving it forward, as you
are too. We have enjoyed our time this morning talking to WWF
and other groups in the chemicals industry and this afternoon
we are having this session with yourself. We look forward to asking
a few questions, if that is all right.
Commissioner Liikanen: Fine.
Q151 Chairman: And you can fire back
at us.
Commissioner Liikanen: No problem.
Q152 Chairman: If I give you a nice
gentle one to start with, that would be okay, would it?
Commissioner Liikanen: And later
the more difficult ones! Fine.
Q153 Chairman: Do you think the legislation
as it stands will protect the environment and human health? This
will give you a chance to tell us what the thinking is here about
human health and how this legislation as it stands is going to
deal with it. We have heard from othersand we hear some
doubts and so onbut what is your position, please?
Commissioner Liikanen: There are
more targets than one with this legislation. We try to target
it to promote sustainable development, which means to support
competitiveness; and, the second pillar, social aims (which means
both jobs and health); and, the third point, environment. Why
we have come to this conclusion is that for competitiveness we
have been able to cut the cost substantially down. After the internet
consultation which we had on draft texts and impact assessments,
we were able to cut the costs from 12 billion euro to twowhich
is good, as such, that we were able to limit it. We make it easier
to innovate, because the registration thresholds are being raised
from 10 kilos to one tonne. We encourage more research as a result
of this story. So that is the first sign. Second, on the issue
of employment and health, this of course means here also environment
at the same time, that when we have a clearer framework for chemicals,
we will know more about old and new substances. Our problem today
is that you know an enormous amount about new chemicals and not
much about the old ones. So REACH will provide more data for assessment.
The same holds true for the health and environment issues. Of
course, for those chemicals which are considered to be very dangerous,
there is a particular authorisation procedure which will be followed.
Q154 Chairman: Do you think the REACH
proposals are "green"? That is a concept that people
have, that they are too "green", too little "green".
How do you see them? How would you position them in terms of the
green-versus-industry continuous struggle?
Commissioner Liikanen: You did
not see Greenpeace, did you? No, not yet.
Q155 Chairman: No, we saw WWF.
Commissioner Liikanen: Yes, WWF
they are, let's say, more diplomatic in their tone. I think, as
far as the balance of this proposal is concerned, that it is relatively
in balance. I do not say that is true for every single detail.
The legislative process is of course also there to make improvements.
But it is relatively balanced because, compared to some earlier
big pieces of legislation which are linked to competitiveness
and environment or health, for the first time we really applied
properly the principles of Better Regulation. The internet consultation
was extremely helpful because it passed us a message on the problems
which the normal inter-service consultations were not able to
tell. I give you an example about the chemical safety assessmentswhich
were proposed and the impact on the downstream users. They turned
out to be much heavier and more expensive than anybody ever thought.
We got the information from the internet consultation, which was
convincing; we finalised our assessment, impact assessment; we
thought that the value-added for that extra work is not there,
so we took it away. The second issue, just to give you another
example of something which we changed, was connected to the question
of the small volume chemicals. The problem which we discussed
a lot in the context of the impact assessment is: Is there the
risk of a withdrawal of some chemicals from the market? Of course,
if that is the case, the substitutes are more expensive, then
the indirect impact on downstream users will be higher. When that
problem became evident, we changed the number of the tests which
are obligatory for small volumes, under 10 tonnes, so that essentially
cuts down the costs for registration and assessment, so the risk
of this kind of strong impact is more limited. So on the costs
side we went to the direction of the industry's concerns, while
respecting the main objectives. A second area which is very interesting
is a question about the homogeneity of the internal market. Industry
had a major concern that it would be a fragmented market, so they
understood that we had not proposed a strong agency, as we have,
for instance, in London, and in many similar European agencies.
Every country tries to compete with each other, to make it more
complicated, and this process has reinforced the role of agencies,
so in REACH the Agency is responsible for all registrations, and
also the agency will have the possibility to intervene if the
requests of the national authorities are disproportionate in the
evaluation phase. So I would say that perhaps the situation this
time was better for us, because of the procedure, the in-depth
consultation. I talk about us who are responsible for competitiveness
and inward investments but also because of the changed international
context. Four or five years ago the European economy was stronger,
jobs were increasing, the only discussion was the competition
between EU and US. Since about two years, Asia has emerged as
a real challenge for the European manufacturing industries and
in this balance of discussion the sustainability starts to get
now the real balance.
Q156 Chairman: Right.
Commissioner Liikanen: It has
not always been the case, because often ministers or even political
leaders have considered sustainability to be a question of the
environment, but now it is confirmed that it is a question of
three pillars: economic, social and environmental. I think REACH
is relatively in balance, and I would say that the industry concerns
all were treated in detail. It does not mean that they were all
accepted but they were treated in detail.
Q157 Chairman: So there was some
imbalance, I guess, before the consultation.
Commissioner Liikanen: I would
say on the costs side, yes: it was too expensive. Let's say, the
costs compared to the value-added were disproportionate.
Q158 Chairman: The process of innovation
in the industry, you have not mentioned that.
Commissioner Liikanen: I mentioned
in my first intervention.
Q159 Chairman: Do you think actually
it will encourage innovation?
Commissioner Liikanen: We must
remember that innovation means always new product requirements.
It is not the old. Today, to be able to get new products onto
the marketin the old system, the legislation starts to
apply from 10 kilos and we raised that to one tonneit makes
it easier. And always, with new chemicals, companies start with
small volumes.
|