Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180
- 199)
MONDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2004
COMMISSIONER ERKKI
LIIKANEN AND
MR NICHOLAS
BURGE
Q180 Dr Turner: Do you think you
are going to succeed in getting the legislation finalised and
passed by 2006 or do you think the European Parliament is going
to deal with it and its progress?
Commissioner Liikanen: That is
a very interesting question because what has happened with this
legislation differs essentially from other pieces of legislation
which are environment related. Because the Council has taken the
decision that this will be led by competitiveness council for
the first time. Others, like Kyoto, emission trading, end of life
vehicles, whatever, they are all environment council. It is a
big change of focus. It will be co-operation but the lead is in
the competitiveness council (which happens to be my council).
In the European Parliament, many people expect that at least there
it will be run only by environment committee. No. It will be run
jointly by the industry, environment and legal affairs committees.
Conclusive of this all is that there is a clear understanding
that to get it passed it must be bi-partisan—I mean, you
know, the balance must be right—and I think that is very,
very good news. Very, very good news. It gives you some certainty
also that we can get the balance right. Whether it will be done
by 2006, it is difficult to know, but I think it is not totally
unrealistic. Of course we have now the problem of elections in
the European Parliament, change of the Commission, changes of
legislation may take time, but for me the quality of the output
is more important than the time it takes.
Q181 Dr Turner: What sort of amendment
do you expect the European Parliament to make?
Commissioner Liikanen: Council
and Parliament—because we must remember that Council has
the lead. I am sure that the question about prioritisation will
be properly discussed. Prioritisation is interesting, because,
for instance, when I was in one of those tens of public hearings
in which I have participated, a green vice-chairman of the European
Parliament said that he is strongly in favour of more prioritisation.
So that is from their side. Animal welfare groups, which normally
are supporting the same issues with the greens, in this issue
are on the opposite position. So you see that from that territory.
Prioritisation also will be favoured by some parts of the industry.
So I am sure that will be one of the cornerstones. The second
cornerstone will be the role of the European Agency and how to
build the processes up. There the European Agency, of course,
will start from a very small number of people, so we cannot overload
it, but there seems to be strong interest from the industry and
from Member States that we must guarantee the coherence of the
internal market, and not fragment it less and less. Everything
pushes for a stronger agency. The third point—which is more
or less our internal affair, but we will be ready—is how
to build this all up before you get the agency functioning, because
in principal you cannot apply the law before it has been adopted.
But if you go out to prepare it then, when it is adopted, it is
too late. How we build up this preparation, I think there will
be very detailed questions on that.
Q182 Mr Key: Commissioner, can we
move on and look at the future and how you are going to apply
the new legislation. Retailers in the UK have said that they have
very little idea how this legislation is going to apply to them,
what they are going to have to do. How are you going to communicate
that with retailers right across the Union?
Commissioner Liikanen: I think
a little bit more detailed question would be easier. Retailers
concern everything but . . . The key question of course is that
the major emphasis is on the original producers of chemicals—in
that area. That is the issue. Unless we are discussing intended
use—intended use, that they do not tell what are the chemicals—then
there is an issue, but in principle we took away the obligation
to make this chemicals safety assessment for the final products.
So the retailers and downstream users do not need to do it. Now—I
mean, after the proposal is studied—we have started a major
process of consulting the stakeholders on the implementation.
We have had a couple of workshops in this area. Both my services
and the Joint Research Centre, close to Milan, are organising
a workshop from 11 to 13 February—which means next week—in
Ispra, to get the process started. The Commission have taken the
position that we take a very open approach in this consultation.
We hope to set up a few particular targeted, let's say, partnerships
there—one is the textile industry, which is a very good
example, just to see how it applies to textiles, another one is
automotive and the third one is paper and so forth—just
to go through every single concrete issue which may emerge.
Q183 Mr Key: Textiles is a very good
example, because there is a new principle here, is there not,
that importers will have to take on the same responsibilities
as manufacturers? Is that a realistic objective?
Commissioner Liikanen: Yes.
Q184 Mr Key: You are confident that
it will be enforced?
Commissioner Liikanen: Of course
we need to enforce it, but the objective must be, of course, that
in principle, let's say, domestic producers and exporters/importers
are dealt with in the same way.
Q185 Mr Key: I wonder if you could
say what countries outside the European Union you are talking
to about REACH and the extent to which you are seeking to extend
the principles of REACH to countries outside the European Union—principally,
of course, our major trading partners.
Commissioner Liikanen: Let's say
the question is that if we were to import chemical substances
to Europe, these laws apply in the same way for internal producers
and external. Whether they in their national legislation would
impost the same trade principles, of course, is up to them. But
could Mr Burge tell how we would treat with the importers in the
field of, let's say, textile and the clothing.
Q186 Mr Key: That would be very helpful.
Commissioner Liikanen: It is,
by the way, not the simplest piece of legislation, so I always
want to give credit to my great experts in the field.
Mr Burge: You were asking who
we have contact with and who we are speaking to. We have had a
great deal of contact with the US. The Commissioner was over in
the US in the autumn and I think has been over on a number of
occasions. We have had people from both the US authorities and
also from the chemicals industry that we have discussed a number
of these issues with throughout last year and we are continuing
that dialogue. With Japan, also, we have had a series of discussions.
China has become very interested in this legislation. And there
are many others as well—the Koreans, for example. So there
is quite a dialogue with major trading partners on REACH and what
its effects are going to be. Obviously, as the Commissioner said,
it is not possible to impose the requirements that are in REACH
which apply to manufacturers, to overseas manufacturers. Quite
obviously. But we can make sure, so that the legislation is WTO
compatible, that we have equivalent and proportionate application
of the legislation to importers and manufacturers. We have tried—and
a lot of the legislation and a lot of the proposal is about balance—to
find a balance in dealing with what we call in the terminology
the "substances in articles"; meaning therefore, as
far as textiles are concerned, dyestuffs in textiles, for example.
We have tried to find a way to make sure that the EU manufacture
of textiles or the EU importer of textiles are treated very much
in the same way, in that we recognised, in looking at the concerns
we have from the health and environmental perspective for textiles,
that we are really concerned where substances are released either
deliberately or not deliberately. For textiles, they would not
normally be released deliberately, but it could be there is a
problem that arises from that, so we focused the legislation to
pick up those sorts of cases. In both cases, the issue is to ensure
that the importer of textiles or the EU producer of textiles takes
responsibilities for the substances that they are using and the
effects that they have.
Commissioner Liikanen: If I may
perhaps add, on these dialogues, how it takes place. I was taking
part in the Transatlantic Business Outlook in Chicago, that particular
workshop of half a day on chemicals legislation, participated
in by the industry and authorities from the other side. I visited
China, where they want to raise this issue to create an open dialogue.
We did that by videoconference contacts with the Chinese, which
were very helpful. In this rare case, many authorities have given
high credit, even in written form, on the openness and transparency
we have had on the issue. So there is no criticism of that sort
we get from the UK, from the United States, nor China, because
it is open, it is all available. It is all available. One must
make the effort, of course.
Q187 Chairman: Is there any evidence
that the chemicals industry might set up manufacturing plants
outside the EU?
Commissioner Liikanen: Of course
that is the issue we must be terribly careful with. I must say,
this challenge of Asia has been a healthy warning inside this
House also. We try to get the balance right, so that unless you
take care of the competitors you lose out. Of course the imported
chemicals must comply with the same legislation, so that they
cannot have the benefit if they do it outside, but still we must
be careful, especially if we guarantee that, this question about
the cost of registration, the facilities to innovate remain intact
in Europe.
Q188 Dr Iddon: Commissioner, as I
understand it, the European Chemicals Agency will be entirely
responsible for all the registrations and presumably also the
authorisations at the end of the process. But the evaluations
are going to be carried out throughout the Member States. There
is a concern there that has been expressed by the Chemicals Industry
Association in Britain and also by CEFIC who we met this morning,
that, for example, a Member State could suspect that a chemical
is very damaging to the environment and recommend to the agency
that it be evaluated just to prevent another state in the competition
process from proceeding to market that chemical, and also concern
that the evaluation process might not be finite. Would you like
to comment on why we have what could be an extremely bureaucratic
competitive process in the evaluation of the chemicals between
Member States.
Commissioner Liikanen: I have
three comments. The first comment is that this is a case which
shows that industry wants to have strong European-level decision-making.
It is very often—in UK debate, for instance—that people
think that whenever you move something to Europe it is more costly
than doing it at home. In this area there is unanimous opinion
throughout industry: it will be a cost-effective method to fund
the whole process run on a European level. The second point is
that we have reinforced the agency essentially since the internet
service consultation. The objective problem today is that the
resources are mostly in the Member States. Before you set it up
and build it up, it takes time, so we cannot start from zero and
say we have a final form. We need time for that. The third issue
is that we have given powers to the Agency to intervene in the
requests of the Member States' authorities on these proposals,
so they are in a strong position to intervene and say, "That
is not possible, that is not proportionate" on day-to-day
decisions. I am sure that my compatriots in Finland are all happy
to make it stronger and stronger every day, this Agency, so, even
though we have no national interest in this file, I will not be
criticised if I give in on that point in the process! That was
not a very correct comment, but in the end of the Commission I
must go back home anyhow!
Q189 Dr Iddon: Again as I understand
it, in the proposed legislation the risks will be evaluated by
one committee and the potential socio-economic benefits by another.
Commissioner Liikanen: Yes.
Q190 Dr Iddon: Could you explain
the reasoning for that?
Commissioner Liikanen: Okay. That
is a very important question. Let's say you have studied gasoline—which
we all know as a product. If there will be a scientific committee
evaluating the risks of gasoline, it is a pretty dangerous product,
but then, before you decide whether you can take some measures,
there should be a parallel socio-economic committee on whether
measures are necessary anyhow for socio-economic reasons. Of course,
they say, "Yes, it is terribly important, so let's do risk
management in the way that there is no danger to the environment
or to citizens." So, to get this balance right, I think it
is better for us that the two aspects are done separately, and
then it goes to the Commission to do the arbitrage. To me, I am,
for example, responsible for competitiveness. It gives an obligatory
dose of common sense.
Q191 Dr Iddon: Could we just get
clear this point to which I referred a moment ago? The authorisations,
will they come from the Commission or the Agency in Helsinki or
wherever?
Mr Burge: The decisions on whether
or not to authorise will be the Commission's.
Commissioner Liikanen: Always
signed by the Commission, yes.
Q192 Dr Iddon: Forgive me, this is
a bit of a cheeky question, but you have referred to Finland,
your home country—
Commissioner Liikanen: I am sorry
about that, but I just came from there last night.
Q193 Dr Iddon: The decision has been
taken to centre the agency in Finland. Could you give us the reasoning
for that. Is it, as you just hinted, because you are central to
the chemicals debate?
Commissioner Liikanen: I think
it is better for you to turn to Prime Minister Blair and ask it,
because I'm not round the table.
Chairman: We will hold you to that, Brian.
Q194 Dr Iddon: Well, you can ask
him tomorrow.
Commissioner Liikanen: Being totally
objective, Finland has a very good record in implementing community
legislation. I am sure they are well equipped to make it run properly.
Q195 Dr Iddon: Was it a very difficult
decision to make?
Commissioner Liikanen: I think
it was . . . but it was really done in the European Council. We
proposed it should be put to Ispra in Milan, close to Milan. But
the European Council makes the decision on this. The Italian Government
opted for the Food Authority, and they could not have two, of
course, and then they had to make one concession to Finland.
Dr Iddon: Thank you very much.
Q196 Dr Harris: Do you think the
proposition, in terms of how we organise the testing, that something
will "reduce the workload and simplify the system for industry
and authorities," applies to the straightforward testing
regime or the one substance/one registration? Do you think, in
other words, that the one substance/one registration proposal
is easier?
Commissioner Liikanen: That is
a very good question. At the outset, one has got sympathy for
this one substance/one registration scheme, but when you get a
little deeper, you get in some trouble. We had discussion a lot
about, let's say, for instance there will be mandatory consortia
when you present a dossier for registration. It sounds fine. What
is the problem? The problem is that then you have all commercially
sensitive information at the table at the same time. I must say
that when I saw some opinions from Chinese participants in our
internet consultations, they welcomed all the inputs in that direction,
they said that finally we can finish this endless European strength
in the field of the chemicals industry, because then all the data
is available on the same day. So we had a long discussion, because
that proposal was on the table: obligatory consortia. I know Lord
Sainsbury has spoken at length on the matter but, in the end,
if the industry has to pay, we are strongly against it. Especially
for some companies, they say it means that then we will have open
books in our research work. Secondly, Mr Spink put the question
about protecting innovation. Here we have tried to be careful.
All the data concerning health and safety is available on the
internet, but we tried to protect the commercial information,
so that business can continue to develop. But, I mean to say,
my position is not final-final, but this issue must be on the
table. The second issue—which has created legal questions—is
on the competition law. What kind of approach should be proper
for the competition? Can we be sure that consortium will treat
equally all participants, like SMEs? Fourth issue: Can we impose
this duty in the same way for internal and external companies
? The fourth matter is a question about the costs. I just want
to reply to you that, let's say, my sympathy and intuition was
more positive to this proposal, and I had to talk about that to
the industry players, when they say that obligatory sharing of
the sensitive data at that phase would be negative for innovation.
Q197 Dr Harris: You are saying that
obligatory, mandatory consortium is a dead duck.
Commissioner Liikanen: Yes.
Q198 Dr Harris: What about voluntarily,
if it turns out it is quite clear that industry, for the reasons
you have given and because they think it is just easier to get
on with it, in particular the bigger players, and do it themselves,
their own registration? If that does not happen, and they are
happy, do you say fine or do you start counting the mice and rats?
Commissioner Liikanen: In that
area, it is my colleague Mario Monti, who will follow it. There
will be competition councils, that all the marketplace should
have the same possibilities. In that area we must remember that
sharing the animal testing data is obligatory.
Q199 Dr Harris: It is obligatory.
Commissioner Liikanen: Yes, because
there is a strong public interest. For other data it is not obligatory.
In our final assessment we said that to put the obligation to
share sensitive data in areas where the public interest is not
necessarily evident, should be disastrous or negative. It is perhaps
not possible. But then, of course, there is the question about
competition law. We encourage full cooperation but of course it
should be done in a way that the competition law principles are
covered.
|
