VVD Eurofractie on-line

Speech to the occasion of the Friends of Europe Cafe Crossfire debate on the EU's new Chemical policy REACH

Brussels , January 19
by Elly Plooij- van Gorsel

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you very much for inviting me here to participate in the debate tonight on the Chemicals policy. I am indeed very happy I have been appointed rapporteur on behalf of the Industry committee on this subject. Ever since the publication of the Commission's White Paper on a 'Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy' in 2001, I have argued that Parliament should assess the new Chemicals Policy from the Industry perspective. The proposal for a regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) confirmed my position even more so. I have two compelling reasons for this:

Firstly, the aim and content of the proposal itself concerns issues such as competitiveness, production methods, innovation, and ensuring a level playing field for all producers in the Single Market. Unless I'm very much mistaken, these are plain and clear industrial policy issues.

Secondly, the chemicals industry is the key manufacturing industry in Europe . There are over 25,000 chemical companies in the EU, the majority of which are SMEs. And I have not even mentioned the downstream users , who come from the entire spectrum of manufacturers.

Needless to say, this new piece of legislation will have a huge impact on the whole European industry, competitiveness and therefore employment . Therefore it is not surprising that this proposal will be dealt with by the Competitiveness Council.

I do not wish to marginalize concerns of public health and the environment, by no means. We as legislators should be able to work towards legislation which maintains and enhances European competitiveness whilst protecting human health and the environment, I'm sure. But I must confess I am somewhat puzzled that at this stage, Parliament looks upon the proposal from an environmental perspective while the bulk of the proposal refers to industrial policy. I will of course do everything in my power to focus the attention of my colleagues on the undeniable consequences these new rules will have on employment and competitiveness.

This being said, I will now mention some points of concern in the proposal of which I think they should be improved.

First and foremost: we need to prioritise the substances which have to be registrated. The Commission wants substances to be tested and registrated if they are produced or imported in quantities of 1 tonne a year, or more. The Commission thinks that risk is related to volume. I disagree. It would be more logical to use a risk-based approach and start registering those substances of which we know they carry risks for consumers or the environment, and substances of which we actually have too little knowledge to be sure they're not dangerous. We shouldn't test for the sake of testing, but I'm afraid that is exactly the main drive of Commissioner Wallström.

The costs of registration are high, and I think we shouldn't place an unnecessary burden on manufacturers. We should try to be realistic and practical. Priority should be given to risk assessment and risk management.

Which brings me to my second point: REACH does not propose a workable methodology. The procedures of registration and authorisation run parallel, which means making the same effort twice. Talk about unnecessary burden! A solution to this, would be to allocate more powers to the foreseen Agency in Finland . The Agency is now only responsible for registration, while Evaluation is in the hands of Member States. This is not a very practical working situation, and it might lead to distortions of the internal market.

The Agency should have sufficient power to be able to do its job and evaluation must be free of national interests. Imagine how this process will take place in the new Member States, in terms of knowledge and capacity!

Another point is European competitiveness in general. Placing these obligations on European manufacturers is to the advantage of producers (and exporters!) in for instance Asia . We're paving the way for Asian products which have been manufactured under more favourable conditions to enter our market.

And it is not only the well-known large industries like BASF or DSM I'm worried about. I'm particularly concerned for the downstream users , like the textiles, glue, food, printing or paint industry. These companies will be faced with a significant supply chain problem as substances will leave the market. It is not a bad thing if substances will extinguish due to their proven risk. But next to that, many substances will disappear because all companies within the chain decide not to produce substances or products on the basis of a cost benefit analysis. The costs of testing and registering can be too high to the extent it won't be profitable to make the substance or product. Especially small companies will suffer from the lack of supply as they do not always have the means to substitute the missing substance or product. Which might lead them going out of business altogether! Plus it hampers innovation: the user industry has a toolbox with which they can combine endlessly, something which won't be possible once certain substances or products are no longer available.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hope I have been able to make you aware of my concise and critical points towards REACH, I trust it will suffice to trigger a discussion later on!

Thank you very much for your attention.