If you missed the exchange on the revision of REACH today, you can watch it here.
Below is the Otter transcript
Bas EICKHOUT 0:05
Final hour this morning. With item number eight on the agenda next change of view with the Commission on the Future revision of the Reach regulation. I think everyone is very well aware this was already promised by the Commission in the chemical strategy for sustainability, it was also put in the zero pollution action plan. So, it is a promise that has been put forward. But that has been delayed since then. And also we had a discussion in the plenary in, in in last year when the work programme was presented. And then of course, also, Vice President Seth kovich was making very clear that once the file is ready, we will not hesitate to present it to Parliament and to Council and the exchange of view is exactly to now inquire where the file is and how it’s standing because there’s quite some eagerness on this file. And you will probably hear that from the different questions from the floor. How are we going to do it is we’re going to give first floor of course to the Commission who is working on the proposal and give us an update on where they stand. And then we are taking around of coordinators are their representatives. Before we also take catch the eye and everyone that would like to speak on catch di please raise your hand and make yourself known to us. But first I’ll give the floor to the commission. We have DGN and DG grow because it’s a joint effort but we also always know that the Commission speaks with one voice. First we have of Al Jabbar no data from DG.
Mr Aurel CIOBANU-DORDEA 1:38
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and good afternoon to the Honourable Members of this committee. Of course, the Commission speaks with a single voice Today we will speak with two voices but singing from the same hymn sheet. And allow me to reassure you that the line which was indicated by Vice President chef for which we fully work along that line, we remain committed to the Green Deal of which the chemical strategy for sustainability is a main deliverable. Strengthening and revising chemicals legislation is one of the strategies building blocks, we will propose a targeted revision of the Reach regulation with the aim of securing competitive advantages and innovation in Europe by promoting sustainable chemicals, simplifying and streamlining the regulatory framework, reducing burden and enhancing and protecting in enhancing the protection of human health and the environment. We are committed to deliver the revision as soon as it will be ready so that the CO legislators can still discuss the file under this mandate or at least begin the discussion. We owe this to the citizens and to the environment. And we owe this to the industry which needs long term legal clarity and predictability to orient investment decisions. Indeed, a timely reach revision is needed to incentivize a thriving market in safe and sustainable by design chemicals to the benefit of our health and environment, for the economy and for the jobs. Let me briefly mention a few key issues which retain our attention in particular indigenous environment as we contribute jointly together with colleagues in grow to this legislative shunt yet to this legislative enterprise. There are a number of issues which are particularly important and which belong to the responsibility of DG environment. Information is at the heart of science based regulation. There remain knowledge gaps in reach, we need more information on critical hazard classes to allow a thorough hazard assessment, including for Carson carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity and endocrine disruption. And from this perspective, we are reflecting how to follow suit to the CLP regulation revision which was proposed last year by the Commission and is currently being discussed by the parliament and by the council polymers and the approach to polymers and how they could possibly be handled under the reach regulation is another topic which retains our attention and the possible need for registration requirements. There are approximately 200,000 polymers on the EU market currently many are of low concern, but some may pose a risk. So we are looking at whether it is right or obliged registration of polymers of potential concern around 40 1000s of them, another element of attention is the combination effects of chemicals, which need to be taken into account and possible solution would be to introduce a mixture assessment factor to reflect that we are exposed to a range, every person is exposed to a range of different substances from different sources at the same time. And also in relation to information. Another point of attention is the registration dossiers. These should be better controlled and it should be possible to withdraw registration numbers in accordance with no data, no market principle, which already is enshrined in the reach regulation. And now, a second important field of attention on which we are working are is related to better enforcement of reach regulation. And we believe that we need an audit system under reach setting up increased and uniform conditions and frequency of checks for certain products. This is the first aspect on which we reflect on which are the optimal modalities to for introducing this so that it works in practice also without adding administrative burden. Another topic for reflection in the area of better enforcement is the following. In line with other recent proposals on environmental legislation, we could we contemplate the introduction of provisions granting civil society further rights and a stronger role in case of breaches of the rules that may harm health or the environment and we give Particular attention in this respect to the obligations resulting from the for the new institutions under the Aarhus convention, and under the or whose regulation. Another area of attention is the need to strengthen the powers of customs authorities to tackle non compliant imports. And we contemplate here the possibility to empower all of us to step in on serious breaches and online sales. We need a responsible economic actor in the EU. Now, I would like to hand over the floor to my colleague, Christian Schreiber, director in DG grow in charge of among other things, chemicals, who will make comments about the aspects relevant to the competence of DG Grow. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 8:04
Thank you very much and already given you the floor. So Ms SCHREIBER, you have the floor.
Kristin SCHREIBER 8:11
Yes, thank you, Chair. And thank you already, let me just complement what my colleague just explained. And I mean, reiterate that when the Commission, we are fully committed to delivering this rate revision speedily, and with a high level of ambition for human health and the environment. But I think it’s also important to underline that we also have a high ambition to simplify the work of the Reach regulation, and tackling all the shortcomings of some processes, which we have experience in the context of the rituals organisations. And we have to make sure that we boost innovation, production and use of safer and more sustainable chemicals. And we want of course, innovation to happen in Europe. And bringing all these objectives together is not an easy is not an easy matter. And I think you are very well aware in the European Parliament, about the discussions we are having now on the generic approach to risk management, on the reform on the authorization and restrictions. And of course, also on the implementation of the essential use concept under reach. And I think we have really enormous opportunities here at hand to make reach more efficient and effective. But we also have to make sure that we don’t end up with any unintended negative consequences. And let’s not forget, I mean, reach is most the most sophisticated piece of chemical legislation in the world. And we have to make sure that when we come forward with this proposal that we get it right. And so I would not just like to repeat, but I think this is really this double measure against which we will be measured as that increase of, of protection of health and safety in the environment, and reduction of administrative burdens. And I’m particularly thinking you have SMEs because they have to make sure that they can actually absorbs the plants to restrict and substitute more substances. And we want to make sure that we help European companies and particularly SMEs to actually gain ground on these very important innovations for sustainable production and use of safer chemicals. And we also want to avoid manufacturing simply driven out of the EU. And then we end up importing the same product which we use to produce. So let me just flag that an already referred to it and we need predictability on the future rules. And predictability isn’t particularly key for companies to plan their investment in sustainable chemistry. And this means that we should give a clear indication how we intend to introduce future restrictions based on the generic risk management approach. And that’s why we will certainly come up with a work plan, which will set the priorities for the generic risk management approach, and uses where human exposure and admissions to the environments are expected to be highest would obviously be priority. And another key element and Aurel already hinted at it is the improvement of enforcing the compliance with rituals. Because we have major issues here, especially for important products, we have to tackle the increasing issue of online sales. And I think this is very, very important. We have a common interest here. Because if the reach provisions are not enforced, this damages not only our health and the environment, but also undermines the level playing field between companies. So all this to say that we are working really with high speed we are we you know that we submitted our our impact assessment of the regulatory scrutiny board in November, we are now progressing with addressing the issues which were identified there, we are advancing with looking at the legal drafting. And so we are working as fast as we can. But I can only repeat what my colleague said that we will stick to what we have put in the work programme of the European Commission, but of course working as fast as possible. And that is the last quarter of 2023. And if we are ready earlier, we will submit a proposal earlier. And as a final word, I just would just like to say while all the colleagues here work, full speed on the revision. Let’s not forget that we have the current legislation and we have important work which is also happening at the moment under the current legislation which I think the parliament has also been following and being involved with a lot of interest like microplastics, etc. So it’s not like that nothing happens on chemicals at the moment. I think we’re working full speed and all aspects Thank you very much.
Bas EICKHOUT 12:32
I’ll try to refrain from immediately commenting I’ll just give the floor to to my colleagues and then first we do a round of coordinators are two minutes each, please and for EPP Maria Spyriaki.
Maria Spyraki 12:48
Thank you Chair, I would like to kindly ask you to say a few words in Greek if it’s possible.
In my country today we’re living a tragedy, the number of dead from the collision of the trains is not clear. Just know how many are dead. Our thoughts go to the people who have died to the families and who those who are trying to recover from this tragic event. The responsibilities should be distributed at all levels, and justice will decide who’s responsible for this, Inglis? Well, it is well known that regulation on registration evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals together with the regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals are the key union legislation for the assessment and management of chemicals. And now goal and I would like to repeat it because it is important is to become the continent of sustainable chemicals by design. And in order to address this goal, we have to revise these two complementary pillars in order to significantly increase the level of protection of our citizens, providing at the same time stability and predictability to the internal market and as a CLP solid in the pipeline of the legislative procedure, as the commission has already mentioned, and they have the heavy duty and the honour and the responsibility to become an operator of this house rates has a significant delay. And the main reason is the pandemic and the consequences to the production of chemicals. Additionally, with the shoring energy cost we face during the period of 2022. As mentioned in the last evaluation of rates in 2018 rates is effective, but there are opportunities for further improvements, simplification, and further induction. And I would like to stick on these two issues on these three issues following some kinds of proposals. First, the revision of the registration requirements for manufacturers and importers has to include increased information so hazards are of concern, documentation of safe use and information on the environmental footprint. Second, the simplification of communication in the supply chains, where it could be considered the inclusion of harmonisation of electronic formats. Third the revision of the provisions for those care in substance evaluation to ensure the registration to scale are in compliance and that sufficient information for completing going concern is available for the reforming of the authorization process. And fifth, the reforming of the restriction process. And in this regard, it could be considered the extension of the generic Rick’s approach to Morris section not only for for the endocrine disruptor, but also for other substances that are affecting human beings human, particularly respiratory Spira to specify the sensitizers or else. So, in this accent, it is important to take into account that, particularly SMEs in the industry will take the cost, and we should make sure that we will make our best. So, these increased cost to be affordable and accepted by the ecosystem and ensure that all operators will benefit of simplified, transparent and predictable provisions. In this regard the simplification of rates in combination with reduction of administrative burdens, particularly for SMEs should be taken seriously, we should extend the changes to rates further to incentivize him for innovation and given essential boost to the European Industry in the framework of greening the industrial plan. And also Furthermore, it is the implementation imposing the same requirements for important products as for domestic products will ensure the level of paid field to celebrate elevating the current disadvantage of the EU industry. It depends not only the empowerment of the of the presence of all of it is also the increase the capacity in the resources or of the levels of FATCA because it is the number one issue we have to make since this is the synthetic base approach. Allow me to conclude with this. There is a strong level of agreement between the industry scientific base and civil society representatives on the need for regulatory certainty or rules related to chemical safety to guide the sector’s green transition and investment and it is time to act now. Thank you very much.
Bas EICKHOUT 17:04
Thank you very much. I know now tune to s&d Maria Elena.
Maria Arena 17:09
Thank you Merci beaucoup. the chemical strategy as a whole and the Reach revision is, above all, as you said, a matter of public health. reducing exposure to chemical substances is a contribution to fighting cancer that plan and also contributing to zero pollution and the Green Deal in general. That’s precisely what broadly justifies the urgent need to overhaul this legislation to make it more effective. That’s what you said earlier, commission representative. So I’ve got a few questions. Firstly, on timing, you said, as soon as possible, I think it’d be worthwhile being more specific. What is the state of progress of the commission’s work in the impact assessment of the Reach reform? By the end of June is invisible? And what remains open to discussion for the time being? On the phasing out of the most dangerous substances that might take several decades and the evaluation approach has only been used twice in 16 years under reach. What is the commission planning to do to govern the exposure of citizens to most dangerous substances such as carcinogenic substances or endocrine disrupters? And what about the restriction roadmap? Is the commission planning to use that to work out binding action for the future? And what about the extension of the general risk evaluation approach? Can you confirm that the most dangerous substances will be forbidden on the basis of their danger? And what substances will be prioritised persistent substances for example, should be included on implementation of the principle of no data? No market, you reminded us that this is a founding principle of the current reach, but this is a failure at the moment and many substances which remain in the market. There are 100,000 substances in the European market and the European Environment Agency tells us only 500 of them are fully known so urgently, we need to ensure that the files provided by industry are comprehensive and we need to look at the reach annexes to ensure that the subjects substances can no longer be on the market. You said that can be done by delegated act and comitology. So there you could go faster Do you have an agenda to change those annexes? Lastly, the PFAS pollutant scandal uncovered last week shows us once again that the REACH restrictions are too slow and not complete enough and they don’t allow for health or environmental protection? What is the commission planning to do to restrict authorization here, especially speeding up regulatory measures to facilitate restriction of substance groups? And what’s happening in terms of the essential use concept? How will that be factored into the restriction and authorization procedures?
Bas EICKHOUT 20:23
Thank you. I will turn to renew Martin Hojsik
Martin Hojsik 20:25
Thank you very much. And thank you for their commission for the role. And Christine for accepting our invitation. I have to say that I’m a bit sad thatwe’re not having enough dialogue with the Commission. We’ve seen a minimum, of course now about lots of consultation that the Commission is doing with the member states and the expert level. And it’s good, it’s really good that the commission is discussing with the member states on how to build the reach and make it really work. But I would like to ask for an equal approach as we have a colegislator with the parliament. And listening for the to the interventions at the very beginning. I have to sadly say I haven’t learned much new that it’s already in theCSS, wait. And that’s where I know that in the committee format, it’s kind of going into its heart. But I would like to really clean encouraged commission for the sake of having really quality legislation in the region of the shores, equally, competitiveness and pro high level of protection of health and environment, to engage with this house much more on a more detailed level, because honestly, hearing, we will consider polymers. It’s not telling me anything, as much as I would like to know more. And hence one of the first question is, so where do you see the main obstacles? Where do you see the opportunities? And how do you think this can be addressed? Because this is the crunch of the thing. Equally, I have to say that the the essential use concept is something really, really relevant. And I would like to understand more from the Commission, and have a fruitful exchange, hopefully on how we can advance the essential use concept on the level that on one hand, it’s delivering the fact that we should not have substances of very high concern in consumer products, full stop. And under a second time, well, there is an essential case, not the colour of lipstick, or colour of a car. But really something that is essential for the society, we still can find a way how to use them, because we need to have it delivered. And the devil is in the detail not in the general statements. And I think this is the level of detail that we need. And hence Another question is, can we have a secret commitment that there will be a more draft text that will be shared with this house? By June unless by June, there is already a proposal on the table, which will be actually ideal scenario that we can more discuss in depth because I think this is really, really important. Another point is the timeline when I’m speaking about the June, the original commitment was 22. We have 23. And the work plan is talking about and q4. I think we really have an urgent need to advance it. And it’s not only the case for the health environment, we have a situation where I keep on hearing from the chemical industry, from the giants of the chemical industry that they urgently need reach. We have entire panic in this town and in the European Union about IRA and the chemical industry is telling me well, we cannot make investment decisions in Europe because we don’t have the legislative certain we don’t have the reach proposal on the table which will tell us which direction do you need is going and how can we adapt it? So big plea for the sake of the industry for the sake of the competitiveness in Europe for the sake of the SMEs in Europe? Please come up with the proposals as soon as possible. Make them out publish them in second quarter. I would be happy with June and bring us on board on the technical level. Because then also I believe the amendments will be more productive and the whole process will be smoother for everybody. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 24:34
Thank you very much for the Greens Jutta Paulus
Jutta Paulus 24:39
Thank you Chair Thank you commission for being with us and for making this exchange of view possible and thanks for confirming that the Commission sticks to the chemical strategy for sustainability and acknowledges that we need to revise reach for the safe and sustainable by design. And I’m also glad that you see the opportunities and closing loopholes remedy shortcoming. Yes and so forth on enforcement fraud and so forth, you have made important points which I can fully support. The zero pollution ambition is a key pillar of the European Green Deal. And therefore, we were a bit worried that we are not seeing even a glimpse on the horizon of the Reach revision yet. Instead, we, we hear ever further dates being pushed behind. And sorry, you should commit here and now that the Commission will adopt the proposal for the revision by June 2023, at the latest, because last trimester 23 is not acceptable, you very well know that we can hardly even start working before the election in this Parliament. And that would mean that a new commission might have totally different interests, taking back the reach revision proposal, and then we will lose another five years. We have seen as my colleagues have already mentioned, an unprecedented pollution with PFAS. And this pollution has happened with the current reach in force for more than 15 years. So this shows why we cannot carry on as we have done in the past. Also, we have we’ve been talking a lot about the industry. And of course, industry is important. SMEs are important. And I fully support what what Martin just said on legislative clarity, because no one will make investment decisions as long as they don’t know in which concept in which products they should invest. But we should also say think of our consumers, we have the commitment in the CSS of toxic free consumer products. And it’s even said, we will take swift action, where is this action, I cannot see it, we don’t even have a target date. And therefore I really urge you to come forward with the concept of inserting essential uses and also with a plan how to protect consumers from harmful chemicals, be they cancer organic, be they hazardous for, for human health as a whole or even for the unborn life. And another key commitment was revision of data requirements, because we need to identify the chemicals with critical hazard properties. And therefore I would also like to know, Do you stand by your commitments given in the CSS with regard of this revision? And let me just reassure you, I don’t see any voice in this payment asking for exempting imports. Imports are already in reach now, and no one intends to take them out. So we will keep the level playing field for our industry so that no one can take advantage of moving production elsewhere. This is just a false flag manoeuvre which was set up in your in your statement right now because it hasn’t happened. And the problem of imports with hazardous substances and control is a totally different one. But you won’t gain anything from moving production. Thanks.
Bas EICKHOUT 28:06
Thank you for very much returned to ID over to Aurelia Beigneux
Aurélia BEIGNEUX 28:10
Merci, Mr. President. Thank you, Chair. Just allow me to remind you that the EU has stopped testing on animals for cosmetics for several years now. But we’re learning that today the European chemicals agency is calling for new tests on animals for products that have been known for a long time. So this is only in the interests of lobbyists who are interested in profits and not animal will fear. What we need to do to ensure that European legislation will ban these animal testing. We urgently need a plan to put an end to animal experimentation. And we need specific concrete progress on this but the Commission needs to close its door to the lobbying community. We need to focus on in vitro tests in which can replace animal tests. We also need to speed up our Digital Research many experiments are done in silly girl, which involves modelling and testing on computers instead of on animals. The European Union gets on its high horse with regard to moral issues to the whole world but it is lagging behind in regards to animal testing. And we must never treat animals in this way we need to trust science and not then in not industry, which is often unscrupulous in its approach. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 30:12
We do not have a speaker for ECR So I immediately turn to the left .
Anja HAZEKAMP 30:18
Thankyou. Thank you chair. It’s absolutely essential that rich, be reviewed to ensure the health of nature, people and animals. Whycan how can you explain the delays that we’ve been faced with? There’s the commission recognised that this legislation has become the victim of the industry lobby. And it talks a lot about level playing field and the consequences on industry. So I’m sure that’s the case. One of the cornerstonesof the Green Deal is the chemical strategy for sustainability. And that’s an acceptable one substance one assessment, that was one of the most important aspects of the revision of reach, not only to increase the speed of everything and the security, but also to reduce animal testing. This process will is now faced with years of delays and I’d like to know how much many an unnecessary animal experiments will result how many innocent animals will suffer as a result of this. It’s not only about animals, it’s also about human health.The postponement for food contact materials is completely unacceptable as well. Then there’s titanium dioxide, the science is clear on titanium dioxide it is carcinogenic. What will the commission do? Concerning the year the ECJ’s decision concerning this aspect of titanium dioxide. And even if science wasn’t as clear on this issue as it is, the precautionary principle should mean that we shouldn’t use this. What will the commission do about this. In closing PFAS. Our , rivers and our environment is heavily polluted with PFAS. And it’s essential that we finally get moving on this but the exceptions in the legislation are far too numerous. They go too far. What will the commission do to ensure that we put a stop to pollution with PFAS? What timeline can we are we looking at because really don’t have a minute to lose on this. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 33:11
That concludes the round of coordinators. So we now move on to catch the eye and we have four speakers and so we can all take them. We have five speakers, but we still all can take them. And we start we start with Mr. Kanev from EPP
Radan KANEV 33:29
Thank you chair please allow me to go on in in Bulgarian on this occasion. Members of the Commission when it comes to my conversation with the environment Commissioner Mr. syncovich, I would like to ask a question to you and to make a call. There is discussion of the classification labelling of essentials rose oil, lavender, dime, etc. My question is, what are the specific plans of the commission here? Becausegiven the unwanted delay of the legislation, there is too much time for rumours and speculation.And when we talk and now my call, I would like to make a call for maximum transparency and communication the production of essential oils is an important sector in many relatively poor regions in the EU, including Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Spain, France, but it is part oflong national and regional traditions. This is true of Bulgaria, which has a long track record of raw soul production. The lack of clear communication a delay in the legislative proposal is fertile ground ground for rumoursand anti European talk. And we’d like to solve this issue through active communication. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 35:06
Thank you very much. We also have Heléne FRITZON
Heléne FRITZON (S&D/Sweden) 35:13
Thank you for getting my chair. Yes, since the last reach revision, more and more studies point to how endocrine disruptors contribute to in fertility, cancer and obesity. So, the revised reach must take this into account and be based on on the one substance one assessment approach. And we also need to tackle the so called cocktail effects from interacting chemicals. We are not working in the air we are swimming in chemicals, without any idea on how to how they affect us. So lastly, I also want to express my support to immediately ban on non essential PFAS. Recently, the European chemical agency published a proposal to ban around 10,000 of these forever chemicals and many national chemical agencies are supporting this ban. So I will therefore like to ask the commission. What about the commission position on this? Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 36:24
Thank you very much. And we have Veronique Trillet-Lenoir
Véronique TRILLET-LENOIR 36:35
Thank you very much chairas rapid for the European plan to fight against cancer. I’d like to reiterate an echo what my colleagues have said we need to revise reach as immediately. We need to prohibitedpolymers and nanomaterials and get clear information on the toxicityand on the nature, we need to evaluate as efficient effectively as possibly the cocktail effects, we need to re group the assessments by familes of substance or substance categories, and not by individual substance. And we are against this practice which was raised in the course of the objections that were raised in this committee. We need to follow the rule of no data, no market, we need to increase financial and human resources of the European chemicals agency. And as has been said, we need to follow up on the implementation of reach in order to contribute to the health of Europeans in a concrete way because this is about preventing non transmissible illnesses, such contagious illnesses, such as cancer as the European Union, needs to show itself up to the task and not given to lobbies and interest groups. Thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 38:13
And for Livia, Michelle reversi.
Michèle RIVASI 38:15
Merci. Merci. Monsieur. Thank you. Thank you chair.I would like to ask a question of the commission, you are not standing, respecting your commitments, there has been the strategy on the durability, and sustainability ofchemicals. And you promised legislation proposal, and by the end of 2022. And you’re now saying it will be the end of 2023. That’s too late, too late. You are not being honest with all European consumers. And if it’s the end of 2023, we’ll be faced with the elections of 2022. So this is not acceptable. And you’re not only cheating us, the MEP s but you are cheating the European citizens as well. Second thing in the revision, in the reach regulation, the three pillars, improving procedures and to others, and when I hear DG grow, making DGR grow more efficiency, improving procedures, who’s talking about health in any of this? Who is responsible for health, you’re talking about small and medium businesses, you’re talking about the industrial sector and a range of other things but nothing about health, but look at the figures, whether it be counters or other a range of other illnesses. We know it’s this chemical substances that cause these illnesses, and you revise Seeing this document and delaying and taking time, and you’re just leading to more and more deaths. And this is a serious this is this is serious. And we the ecologists have always as good up for getting the best regulation, and you are pushing back the time when this can be implemented. This legislation can be passed, and you’re doing that, because you’re giving into the lobbies. And we’re here to protect the health of consumers. Give us proof that you are able to get a regulation now. June at the latest, so it can be operational,
Bas EICKHOUT 40:41
I have Peter Liese
Peter Liese 40:44
Yeah, I will speak in German. I’d like to make the point here, I’d like to thank the commission for not having proposed the put the text forward yet, because it doesn’t need to be done quickly. It needs to be done well. And I have the feeling that the Commission does too little, and that the quality of the proposals suffers as a result. I think what we need is good legislation. And not focus too much on speed. There is rich already. And there’s a lot of regulation with regard to many chemicals. And it’s sometimes it’s too strict in some areas take such as with chromium, you’re powerless. How is it that we support the producers in third countries. Because all we’re doing is getting it to be produced elsewhere because of our rules. And we’re in and we have problems with the products, the current products, the finished products that are brought in. And if the commission could focus on this problem to find a better solution so that we can include countries in this if possible. PAFAS is t is a big issue, Mrs. Pauwelss and other initiatives of the green environment ministry in Germany is sort of leading the way and wit.But it’s not about getting a new rich proposal on the table next week. And I’ve understood that the member states are prepared to work on the basis of the currentregulation. And there is support for the compromises on the F gas because there we have alternatives. And we need to profit from those alternatives. But there were there are no alternatives. Where the products need to be kept, though we need to allow these chemicals such as with fire protection.Materials. Thank you
Bas EICKHOUT 43:00
I would like to take the privilege as a chair to do the final slot on catch the eye. I will be very short and focus on one simple question and it’s the timing of the proposal. And this is really I want to focus on the clarity that we are giving to the markets and to the industrial players. If the reach proposal comes in December, it will not be dealt with any more by this Parliament. It will stay on the table. It will create unclarity, what will happen to it, it will only be picked up later when a new parliament with a new commission, we do not know for sure what they will do with it. In other words, by putting it on the agenda for December, you are creating unclarity to the market for at least another two years. That’s what you’re doing. And we all know and that’s the elephant in the room. We all know it was a political compromise to do that. Because there were people that didn’t want to have to reach review and others wanted it and the compromise. Let’s put it late in 2023. But sometimes the compromise is worse than any of the two initial proposals, because now it is still on the agenda, but with a lot of unclarity and this is also exactly why indeed chemical players come to us and say we prefer to have it if it’s coming then make sure this parliament can deal with it. And that’s the question we’re not talking about days. We’re not talking about weeks, but enable this parliament to deal with it in order to create clarity for the market. That’s one of the key reasons why we’re having this debate. And a bit more clarity from the Commission in its answers would be very much appreciated.
And that concludes to catch the eye also from my side. So now the Commission can give the answers. We have 10 minutes left. So I propose we take five minutes each and first I’ll give the floor as we did also at the initial starts to allow Ciobanu from DG ENV.
Mr Aurel CIOBANU-DORDEA 44:54
Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I would like to thank also the members who of this committee who have intervene, and I take it to that there was unanimous support for the commission to comeas soon as possible with legislative proposal amending the reach, and we are hearing your different arguments. And we will, of course, report them back. If I were to systematise, the extraordinarily diverse remarks which have been made from the floor, I would say that maybe in relation to reach revision, there have been three points made, essentially about the timing of the proposal about elements of content. And I think, also about what the level of engagement in detail with the members of this committee and members of this House in general, and I would like to address these three issues plus two additional issues which have been raised here, PFAS and titanium dioxide. And I would like to say the following. We are doing our best right now, in order to make this legislative proposal available. And decided by the college as soon as possible. However, this and you know it very well, it’s also a political decision in itself. And it is when the commission will be politically ready to do this, it will do it. And we are making our best efforts in order to provide content in a rational way and in a practical way, and in a way, which is also compatible with the needs, which is careful about the administrative burden, which pays attention to the correlation between the reach revision and the CLP revision that we have just proposed.Last year, so what do I mean to say with this speed must not come at the expense of the quality objects. So we need to strike and we are doing our best efforts in order to strike the right balance between speed and quality. And we bear in mind, indeed, as MEP reversi, for instance, and others intervenors have pointed out as a core, we are bearing in mind the impact for consumers, also the impact for the industry, the impact on the procedures to make them more feasible, and swifter than to really bring improvements that would benefit both consumersand the industry. And they would modestly say also the institution’s your authorities, which are involved national authorities, European Commission, the agency. Now,the secondblock of issues which have been raised here are about elements of content and I have tried in my intervention to already provide some preemptive reassurance that issues which you have mentioned.nAnd also my colleagues did, my colleague did the same thing that you have mentioned as very important, the reform of restrictions, the simplification of authorizations, the issue of essential uses the generic approach to risk to risks, the inclusion of polymers, the inclusion of endocrine disruptors, or effects caused by endocrine disruptors are taken into account, we’ll figure in the body of the legislative proposal amending Rich and I would like to reassure that I think all absolutely all the issues that you have raised, will be addressed in the legislative proposal addressing which was this also gives a measure of the complexity of this legislative proposal. And the third, I think, block of issues that you have raised here is the early engagement and MEP hoys seeker who is Canossa of the chemical legislation. And also the office regulation, by the way, has raised the problem of the early and deep engagement between the commission services Even among, even before the legislative proposal is made and MEP Voicing is also found connoisseur of the rules of the game, and of the European procedures and know that and knows that an honourable all members of this House otherwise knows that in particular in his file, but also on other legislative proposals, we don’t engage in detail on things which are subject to political decision. And until the College of the commission will decide on all these elements, we cannot, under promise you or mean engage in detail under promising or over promising to you but I can say the following given the complexity of these issues, we will engage with you once the proposal is stable in and we will engage with you collectively or individually, depending on how on the interest that you will express ready to explain why we are proposing certain solutions, and not others, the feasibility, the implications, the impact, the assessment of the impact and so on. But I would like to have to say, respectfully submit that we cannot engage in depth, as you suggest before a political decision is made by the college. On the titanium dioxide, which we like to believe you you’re sure MEP I think Arina who has raised this issue? Yes, I will conclude Mr. Chair, that the commission has appealed the judgement. And on the issue of PFAS. I could speak for a few more minutes, of course. But I will, would like then briefly to reassure the members who have expressed their concern about PFAS that three procedures are ongoing in order to address PFAS in different forms, or in different uses. And the commission stands fully behind these procedures. Some of them have been initiated by member states. And we will watch that we bring them at the end so that they are effective. Thank you very much.
Bas EICKHOUT 52:28
Thank you very much. And now we turn to Christine Schreiber from DG GROW for the final words.
Kristin SCHREIBER 52:34
Yes, I will try to be shorter to make up for some some time. Let me first also from from my sight, thanks for all the different interventions which helped us a lot in our in our process. And I mean, already you explained I mean, they of course the formula aspect of the engagement parliament. But I think it’s also fair to say we stand ready to engage when there’s a seminar or some discussion. And I think we’re very happy than to, to to exchange and explain issues. And I think we have actually been pursuing this already quite, quite, quite extensively. I would also I mean, you flagged all the different points which we had put in our, in our ongoing prevention, I think what is really important that we will have a roadmap. And that also to reassure that we they own the timeline on how the how the substances are tackled, that we really anything we can reassure you on all these fronts, that the most harmful substances will be phased out in in consumer uses. I would like to pick up I mean, one point on the animal tests because it was mentioned twice. We I mean, we have a very, very strong commitment to wherever possible, of course, phase out animal testing, and especially maximise the use of the new approach methodologies, the alternative testing methodologies. And I think here again, it’s as always, it’s a complicated trade off, I mean, we need more information on certain substances. For that you may need more animal testing, it’s a delicate trade off because it involves costs, but it also costs in terms of in terms of use of animals. So I think we have to be extremely careful when we actually go for more information requirements, if this requires more animal testing, so it’s a delicate trade off, we have to have a commitment to use these new approach methods, you know that there is also the your the European partnership for the alternatives to animal testings, which is very active. And so I can really reassure you that what ever is in our possibilities to make sure that we will use as few animals as as possible in the process. And finally, I mean, you refer to P FOSS already, but I think it’s really important that we are tackling this under mean we can tackle this under existing Reach, reach regulation. There is there is a major restriction proposal proposal coming up which has been submitted to To echo and we have already made, it’s important to point out that we have already restricted some p for substance like the P of ice and PFOA. So I think this is something which is something we are looking at very closely and we will, once we have the feedback from AQa, of course, come up with with a proposal. So, I mean, in short, just I mean, I would say, from our perspective, thank you very much for also the sense of urgency you have fought to us, but I think it was also clear, and I think that came up from over and it’s not, we just don’t want any reach revision, we want good reach revision, which works, which actually achieves its ambitious health and safety objectives without sort of unnecessarily increasing admin burden. And as he says, I mean, trust, please plus transport, that is not it’s not an easy objective. But we’re working with a set very, very hard and in a joined up way to deliver this as fast as possible. And definitely within the timeframe, which was set, which is q4. q4, doesn’t have to be December’s in q4 starts on October in any case, thank you.
Bas EICKHOUT 56:08
Thank you very much. Just just stressing that October or December doesn’t matter if you look from legislative proposals, so in that sense,still, making that point still owes for the clarity for all the players in the markets. That concludes this exchange of view. Thank you very much. I also thank the commission very much. And we are eagerly awaiting the proposal that I think became clear from this exchange of views. I don’t want to thank my colleagues very much. And I just want to say that we now have a break but we reconvened envy committee meeting with votes at 230 See you then.
Thank you very much. Just just stressing that October or December doesn’t matter if you look from legislative proposals, so in that sense,still, making that point still owes for the clarity for all the players in the markets. That concludes this exchange of view. Thank you very much. I also thank the commission very much. And
we are eagerly awaiting the proposal that I think became clear from this exchange of views. I don’t want to thank my colleagues very much. And I just want to say that we now have a break but we reconvened envy committee meeting with votes at 230 See you then.