Parties unite on EU chemicals safety law (REACH)[fr][de] 

The Parliament's Environment Committee on 10 October largely supported Rapporteur Guido Sacconi by voting in favour of his second-reading recommendations on the draft REACH regulation (42 in favour, 12 against and 6 abstentions).

The committee reintroduced most of the Parliament's first-reading amendments of last year, leaving Sacconi in a stronger position to negotiate with the Council of Ministers in view of a possible final agreement before the end of 2006.

Sacconi said: "Producers and importers will be made responsible for analysing their chemicals and proving either that they are safe or that their use is necessary and strictly controlled. Dangerous products will be submitted to authorisation under strict conditions and the process should stimulate the development of safer alternatives to the most dangerous substances."

The amendments include:

• A requirement that toxic chemicals be banned and replaced by safer alternatives whenever this is socially and economically acceptable (substitution principle);
• the introduction of a 'duty of care' principle to ensure producers take responsibility for the safety of the products when risks can be "reasonably foreseen", and;
• a review of authorisations granted to the most toxic chemicals every five years.

At a press conference, Sacconi challenged the EU Council of Ministers to "work in favour of an agreement" and open negotiations for second-reading.

"We demonstrated today that we have a majority [in favour of REACH in Parliament]", said Sacconi, who managed to secure the backing of the Liberals and Greens to form a majority with his own Socialist camp. "It is now time to open negotiations with the Council to complete the legislative process," he added.

It remains to be seen, however, whether the same majority can be found in plenary. MEP Ria Oomen-Ruijten said the EPP-ED group, the largest in the Parliament, would secure "at least 240" votes to defeat the socialists, greens and liberals. With only 63 members, she said the Committee "is not representative of the plenary", which counts 732 members.

In an interview with EurActiv earlier this month, Sacconi said he stood ready to hammer out an agreement with the Council before the Parliament’s plenary vote scheduled for November. With prior approval from the Council, so-called 'compromise amendments' would stand every chance of securing the 367 votes required out of the Parliament’s total of 732.

The centre-right EPP-ED group says it wants to stay as close as possible to the Council's position on the substitution principle. But, in the view of Ria Oomen-Ruijten MEP, the "socialists, liberals and greens ... want to introduce a lot of red tape" in the procedure by requesting a cost-benefit analysis "automatically for each application".

According to Oomen-Ruijten, the associated costs for private companies "could rise to a maximum of 70,000 euro for a compulsory socio-economic analysis", making authorisation for those prodcts "virtually impossible". 

"Around 400 chemical substances, vital for the production of mainly high-tech products, would effectively be banned from use in the EU," she said.

For the PES (Socialists), "the substitution principle is clearly the cornerstone of the whole legislation on chemicals". The group believes mandatory substitution should "encourage industry to develop safer alternatives to chemicals that threaten workers' and citizens' health".

The ALDE group (liberals) were supportive of Sacconi. "MEPs have taken a tough stance," said Chris Davies MEP (UK, Lib Dem), who expressed satisfaction that the ALDE votes "tipped the balance in favour of a more 'green' approach".

The Green group, which teamed with the socialists and the liberals, was upbeat. "Today's vote by the Environment Committee is an important step towards ensuring that REACH will go some way towards achieving its intended goal of protecting human health and the environment from dangerous chemicals," said Swedish MEP Carl Schlyter.