8 Use of cosmetics
| (29479) 6725/08 + ADDs 1-2 COM(08) 49
| Draft Regulation on cosmetic products (recast)
|
| Legal base | Article 95EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
|
| Basis of consideration | SEM of 13 March 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 16-xvi (2007-08), chapter 2 (19 March 2008)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
8.1 Council Directive 76/768/EEC[47]
seeks to harmonise the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic
products, and, in its Communication Implementing the Community
Lisbon programme: A strategy for the simplification of the regulatory
environment,[48]
the Commission announced its intention to recast this measure.
It gave effect to that intention
in this proposal, which it put forward in February 2008, and which
it says has three main objectives. These are to remove legal uncertainties
and inconsistencies arising from the numerous amendments which
have been made over the years; to avoid differences in national
transposition; and to ensure that cosmetic products placed on
the Community market are safe, in light of innovations in this
sector.
8.2 As we noted in our Report of 19 March 2008, these
objectives are supported by a number of substantive changes to
the Directive, which would introduce a set of definitions; include
a system to update the glossary of common cosmetic ingredient
names; specify for the first time which elements should be included
in order to provide evidence of a product's safety; and strengthen
in various ways a number of the controls on cosmetic products
which are currently undertaken when the product is already on
the market. The recast proposal would also amend the definition
of carcinogenic, mutagenic substances and substances toxic to
reproduction (CMRs).
8.3 We also noted that the text reflected the discussions
which had taken place in informal Commission working groups, and
that the UK supported the proposal. We were told that the Government
would be submitting a full Impact Assessment, but that, in the
meantime, these new requirements would increase costs for industry,
particularly for those companies which have in the past refrained
from producing a robust safety assessment of their product prior
to placing them on the market. These would, however, be offset
by the considerable decrease in administrative costs involved,
with any residual costs being justified by the benefits to consumers.
8.4 We concluded that it would be prudent to await
the Government's Impact Assessment, but that much of this proposal
would either re-enact the provisions in Council Directive 76/768/EC,
or make amendments which appeared to be uncontentious. However,
we asked for confirmation that the current document would make
no substantive changes to Directive 2003/15/EC,[49]
which had introduced a number of provisions relating to the use
of animal testing for cosmetics (and which had been the subject
of a number of Reports[50]
by previous Committees).
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 13 March
2009
8.5 We have now received from the Minister for Trade
and Consumer affairs at the Department for Business, Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform (Mr Gareth Thomas) a supplementary Explanatory
Memorandum of 13 March 2009. This confirms that the proposal has
not made any substantive alteration to the part of the Directive
dealing with animal testing, and that there has been no substantive
discussion relating to this.
8.6 The Minister has also provided the promised Impact
Assessment. This points out that there are about 380 businesses
in the UK, employing about 17,000 people, which manufacture cosmetics,
with a turnover of around £2.7 billion, The Assessment also
suggests that the annual cost of the proposal would be about £7.5
million, mainly as a result of increased safety levels, but that
there would be benefits of between £15 and 24 million in
terms of cost savings from the clarification which the new measure
would provide.
Conclusion
8.7 We are grateful to the Minister for this further
information, and now clear the document.
47 OJ No. L 262, 27.9.76, p.169. Back
48
(26982) 13976/05: see HC 34-xiv (2005-06), chapter 9 (11 January
2006). Back
49
OJ No. L 66, 11.3.03, p.26. Back
50
(21170) 7716/00: see HC 23-xxi (1999-2000), chapter 1 (14 June
2000), HC 23-xxvii (1999-2000), chapter 12 (25 October 2000).
(22837) - : see HC 152-vii (2001-02),
chapter 2 (21 November 2001), HC 152-xvi (2001-02) (30 January
2002) and HC 152-xix (2001-02), chapter 1 (13 February 2002). Back
|
