Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240
- 254)
MONDAY 9 FEBRUARY 2004
MS JUDITH
HACKITT, MR
JOHN KEMP
AND MR
CRAIG BARKER
Q240 Dr Iddon: Who is going to determine
the safe levels that are acceptable to the general public? Has
that been determined or has there even been a discussion about
it?
Ms Hackitt: That is part of the
unclear area currently in terms of how much of this will be determined
and controlled centrally by the Agency and the extent to which
individual member states will make different decisions.
Mr Barker: That is one of the
biggest problems which we have in the evaluation area and it is
the actual use of the Member States and the variations in determinations
which we know we get—we have had this for many years with
new substances—relating to how they interpret the data and
what they require as further information. There is not a standard
in Europe presently; each and every member state seems to have
their own way. They try to harmonise it but I have seen several
cases where this does not function correctly. It is our opinion
that it would be much better to run this through a central agency
than through member state organisations, especially on making
final decisions on these chemicals.
Q241 Dr Iddon: There is obviously
something to be resolved there before we proceed. On substitution,
are you opposed to the wording on substitution in the REACH proposals
as it stands at the moment or is it more to do with implementation?
Ms Hackitt: A little bit of both
I think is the answer to that. First let me say that we are not
opposed to substitution as such. Substitution is something which
this industry does all of the time in developing new and innovative
products to replace ones that have been on the market. There are
many examples of substitution going on all the time. That said,
I think our concerns about what is proposed in the legislation
right now is that, first of all, the idea that any substance which
goes as far as authorisation must have a substitution plan to
go with it. We would ask whether there are not circumstances where
authorisation, by its very nature, has demonstrated that a substance
can be used properly and safely in that given application. Therefore,
why does it have to be substituted, particularly if the alternatives
are not as effective or have perhaps other unknown disadvantages
associated with them? The second thing that we are concerned about
in the workability of the wording on substitution relates to the
idea that the supplier alone can deliver a substitution plan.
We know from experience that any effective substitution plan has
to involve the whole supply chain. That has been proven time and
again through work that has gone on in the industry and has been
proven by the voluntary work of our own chemical stakeholder forum,
that involving the supply chain and users is very necessary to
make a substitution plan work.
Q242 Dr Harris: Are you pleased with
the support you have from government or would you qualify that
by saying that some parts of government—letters from the
Prime Minister, DTI—have been better than other parts of
government, DEFRA or perhaps vice versa?
Ms Hackitt: I would not make any
distinction whatsoever. I think we have had a very fair hearing
from every government department that we have talked to. They
have all been challenging; they have all asked us to make our
case and make it convincingly. It has not by any means been a
pushover anywhere. That said, I think we have been very, very
pleased to have had the strong support we have had from all government
departments. I think this reflects the genuine concerns that we
are expressing and the fact that what we are all looking to do
is to get to a workable, effective piece of legislation put in
place as quickly as possible.
Q243 Dr Harris: I am going to ask
you in a minute—but I will give you a minute while I am
asking the next question to think about it—what question
you think you would, if you were us, put to the minister who is
coming here in a minute. What do you think the key issue is there?
You say you have had the support and listening and all that, but
then there is this campaign by British government in particular
for a policy which is mandatory one substance one registration
that you do not like for reasons you have just explained. You
do not like it in terms of its inflexibility. Obviously everyone
agrees that animal testing data should be shared and all that,
but I do not understand how you can accept those two contradictory
situations: you love what the Government is doing but you disagree
with what they are doing or calling for.
Ms Hackitt: I think you could
point to any group of people that we have engaged in debate with
on this subject and point to areas where we fall over one another
in agreement and areas where we do not agree on the level of detail.
I think that applies to discussions that have gone on between
the industry and green NGOs for example. There are many things
that we agree on in this proposal, but there are points of detail—in
some cases significant detail—where we do not agree.
Q244 Dr Harris: Let us concentrate
on those. Going back to my first question, why is it, do you think,
that you have failed to persuade the Government that the one substance
one registration as they propose is not a good idea? Why is that?
Ms Hackitt: I do not think we
have failed to convince them yet. My belief is that those discussions
are still taking place. We are still trying—and I believe
the Government's answer would be the same—and we are working
together to try to find a way of putting something based on the
principle of one substance one registration wherever possible,
together that we could then offer up to Europe as a workable way
forward.
Q245 Dr Harris: Perhaps that is going
to be the question. Do either of your colleagues wish to add anything?
Mr Barker: I think that everyone
is in agreement that there is a need to share the information
on animal testing. We have to make sure that there is no duplication
of testing by whatever means. The proposal as was given on 29
October fails in that. The Commission's proposal still fails in
clearly making that data available because of the pre-registration
scheme being a two-fold system, and data on animals not being
presented at the same point in time. We cannot guarantee that
all the data shall be on the table for all users, given the present
scheme and I think there are certain facets of the one registration
one substance approach that will lead towards at least the sharing
of information. Where we go after that and when we get into the
detail of looking at the exposure scenarios, especially when they
could be regarded as confidential business information, will be
difficult to share in a consortia situation. There might be facets
of this approach that we can take on board, but there will be
other parts that we will want to be doing independently as companies.
Mr Kemp: I think the biggest part
is the part in terms of sharing the data, et cetera. I think people
like us who understand that one single chemical can have very
many different applications will know that if we try to put that
together in one registration then we are never going to get to
an end. Trying to get twenty people using the same chemical for
different things to come up with one risk assessment is never
going to work. However, I do not think that is a disadvantage
to anyone provided we do the other part of sharing data and making
sure that that is absolutely shared and making that work. I think
that is the important thing to everyone.
Q246 Dr Turner: Commissioner Liikanen
told us last week that he felt that the draft proposals were still
not quite the finished product and they still needed some more
tweaking to make them workable. However, he did think that there
was a fair balance between the environmental and public health
aspects of the proposals, and competitiveness. Do you agree with
that proposition?
Ms Hackitt: I certainly agree
with Commissioner Liikanen that by the time the proposal was published
we had arrived at a scope for the legislation which made much,
much more sense than the draft we saw back in July for consultation.
We have come a long way; we have made a lot of progress in getting
a sensible scope for the legislation. Whether or not we deliver
the benefits we are all looking for in terms of improved health
and environment as well as preserving industrial competitiveness
depends on making the regulation workable. That is the challenge
that lies ahead. For example, if we do not police imports of chemicals
properly then we will not have met the environmental objectives
of this regulation.
Q247 Dr Turner: Fair point. Were
you happy with the Commission's consultation process? Do you think
it has dealt with the problem of this particular point in question
that needs to be resolved? Do you think the consultation process
has been adequate?
Ms Hackitt: I think the consultation
process for this particular piece of legislation was very welcome.
I think it was quite difficult for any of us to do a thorough
job on such a large document in the time that was available so
I think we would all ideally have asked for longer to go through
it in more detail. That said, I think we welcome the consultation
process and we particularly welcome the Commission's acknowledgement
of the need to make some of the modifications that were made before
it was published, but there is still some way to go.
Q248 Dr Turner: How much influence
on the outcome do you think there will be given that the process
is being led by the Competitiveness Council of Ministers?
Ms Hackitt: I think what lies
ahead is a very complex process because, as you say, on the one
hand we have the Competitiveness Council leading in the Council
of Ministers. I am sure that under that body all aspects of sustainable
development will be taken into account. That will be a very balanced
debate, we hope. Equally there will be a very complex process
to take place within the Parliamentary system too because we know,
as of last week, that three committees are actually going to debate
this legislation within the Parliamentary process and that is
something that, so far as I am aware, has not happened before.
Q249 Chairman: In terms of REACH,
what consistency is there across government departments in relation
to that? Do you find different views in different departments
or are they all of one view?
Ms Hackitt: Certainly from our
experience the amount of commonality of views and indeed cross-governmental
working that has taken place on this would be something we would
have no arguments with whatsoever.
Q250 Chairman: From your experience
of it, it is fine.
Ms Hackitt: Yes.
Q251 Mr McWalter: One of the things
that concerns me is how far is it envisaged that the Agency is
going to go in terms of its questioning? For instance, rubber
could be regarded as a naturally occurring substance, but the
rubber in o-rings in a motor vehicle—the hardened rubber—when
there is a vehicle fire you can get a hydrogen fluoride residue
which obviously is very dangerous. Yet it might well have been
a very benign fluorine containing chemical that gave rise to the
hardening process in the first instance. Is it going to be envisaged
that under any circumstances of use this would be regarded as
a hazard? Or is it that the Agency would only look at normal use
of a product and therefore not really consider things like that
rubber or things like that fluorine containing input in positions
of abuse or whatever? How does that all work?
Mr Kemp: Today we have very clear
obligations under the law in terms of the information that we
have to provide in the safety data sheets that we provide with
any of our products and that would include information on things
such as in the event of a fire, spillage, et cetera. From
that point of view we very much have to look at those aspects
and communicate that with our customers and it is their responsibility
to communicate those down the supply chain. I do not think you
could ever look at all the consequences in terms of registration
of products, the potential products and misuse of every product
in the market and try to define every form of misuse. I do not
think practically you are every going to do that, but the simple
things like involvement in fire, what happens if you spill, et
cetera, are things that are already well covered with the
SDS legislation which was only updated in 2002.
Q252 Mr McWalter: You said earlier
that the role of this Chemicals Agency is far from clear and you
said in your representations to us that you wanted to see a more
powerful Chemicals Agency, so you want to see a very powerful
but rather muddy outfit, do you?
Mr Kemp: Not at all. We want it
to set the standards and make sure that the common standards are
applied through the EU because one of the biggest dangers that
we can see is that certain activities which are currently in the
hands of member states can happen very differently in different
member states and as a consequence it can upset the competition
in the market if we are dealing with a competitor who is doing
a registration and particular evaluation from a different member
state of the EU and they get an entirely different approach from
that member state to the one we are getting with a competitive
product, that is clearly against the interests of what REACH is
supposed to set out. That is one example where we would very clearly
like the Agency to be setting those standards and ensuring those
standards are maintained equally across the member states or preferably
doing certain things centrally so that you can ensure that common
standard.
Q253 Mr McWalter: My example indicates
that their brief can be interpreted in a hugely variable set of
ways, all the way from being nightmarishly Euro-bureaucratic to
being relatively permissive and laissez-faire. How are you going
to be able to ensure that this decision making mechanism actually
delivers what you want as opposed to what they might want?
Ms Hackitt: I think there is an
opportunity and the sorts of things we must all be participating
in between now and when this legislation comes into force are
some of the pilot trials which are going on which look at some
of these very issues about when you are actually trying to put
substances through this process how does it work in practice.
The industry has made its commitment quite clear that we are willing
and are ready to participate in those pilot trials with the Commission
to ensure that we do find all of those glitches in the system
before the legislation comes into force.
Mr Kemp: I think we also feel
very clearly that if we are going to get a common—but also
pragmatic—standard which is science based (we are not asking
for testing that really does not need to be done) the chances
of getting that through one body is going to be a lot more likely
to succeed than trying to get that standard across 25 member states—as
it will be—all doing their own thing, potentially from very
different levels of competence and confidence.
Q254 Mr McWalter: Obviously, for
the reasons we have said, there are a lot of concerns about whether
this whole business will stifle innovation. You clearly must share
that view but obviously you are optimistic that those serious
consequences can be avoided.
Ms Hackitt: I think there is still
the opportunity to design this legislation in such a way that
it will not stifle innovation. Equally, there is an enormous opportunity
to do the reverse. Written in the wrong way it will stifle innovation.
Chairman: Can I thank you all very much
indeed for taking the time to come and answering our questions.
| 
