Strasbourg, 15/11/2005 (Agence Europe) - Two days ahead of the vote in first reading at the European Parliament on the draft REACH regulation (on the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals), the gloves were coming off among MEPs. No less than 1066 amendments have been tabled by political groups of various hues, with some rather odd flavours (Christian Democrats allied with Social Democrats allied with Liberals, or Christian Democrats allied with Social Democrats, for example) on the 800-odd page regulation, decisive for the future of public health and the environment that will have such a big impact on industry. The EPP-ED, PSE, ALDE alliance backing the compromise agreed with the main rapporteur, Italian PES MEP Guido Sacconi and the rapporteur for the Single Market and Consumer Committee, German EPP-ED MEP Hartmut Nassauer, hope to be able to win the day (see EUROPE 9066). The EPP-ED group has, however, established a safety net by lodging no less than 500 amendments to re-table all the Internal Market and Consumer Committee, and Industry and Research Committee desiderata. The MEPs will not find it easy to find their way around the tomes of amendments to establish the desired balance between health and environmental aims and European competitiveness. Most MEPs believe the Sacconi-Nassauer compromise has the best chance of winning the vote on Thursday.
The Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups do not share this view. Alarmed by the compromise, which they describe as massively watering down the benefits of REACH for health and the environment, they have decided to join forces to fly to the aid of REACH and fight what they describe as an offensive by German MEPs, all acting together despite their different political parties. A draft compromise on the registration of chemicals has been tabled by the Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL as an alternative to the Sacconi-Nassauer compromise. They describe the plan as Plan R - R for Rescue REACH. In their compromise, the Greens/GUE criticise the drastic cut in the number of chemicals manufactured or imported in volumes of between one and ten tonnes for which industry has to provide basic information on chemical properties (they describe the reduction as failing to meet the 'no data, no market' principle, which would only apply to around 10% of the 20,000 chemicals manufactured or imported in small quantities). To remedy this, they call for no connection to be made between the usage criterion and risk, thereby enabling full basic information to be provided for around 50% of small volume chemicals, with checks being carried out on at least 10% of all incomplete dossiers. They also call for an evaluation of the full chemical safety record of all chemicals rather than restricting evaluation to chemicals likely to be CMR or PBT (which would amount to exempting 90% of all chemicals); want clarification of the criteria for exempting chemicals from certain tests on the grounds that stating that suitable controls can exempt chemicals from testing makes no sense if, as the Greens/EFA point out, the properties of those chemicals is not known; and want authorisation for opting out of sharing physical, chemical and toxicological data on the grounds of confidentiality to be granted only where costs would exceed the forecast benefits of OSOR (one substance, one registration). Monica Frassoni, Vice-President of the Greens/EFA, told reporters that there was the danger of losing a year and a half's work at the European Parliament since industry pressure on REACH was reaching unheard-of levels. She said the fight was continuing on two crucial issues - registration and authorisation, adding that Guido Sacconi had worked very well with the Greens/EFA, but the Greens/EFA feared that he had now given too much ground under pressure from Germany. There was still a chance, however, that the new deal would continue to meet the initial objectives set out for REACH, added Frassoni. Marie-Anne Isler Beguin, French Green MEP, said it was extremely shocking to see how a handful of German Socialists had got Sacconi to give way, adding that the Greens/GUE had put forward a sensible compromise to allow REACH to be kept intact.
On behalf of the Liberals, Graham Watson, President of the ALDE group, said the results of the compromise were a significant step forward in terms of taking health, the environment and competitiveness into account. He said he was pleased to hear the Commission had approved the compromise, with the exception of Gunter Verheugen. Hans-Georg Pottering, President of the EPP-ED group, said he doubted Verheugen actually disagreed since at the plenary he had argued in favour of the compromise (we will return to this). For the EPP-ED, Ria Oomen Ruijten said her group had since the beginning and in all EP committees been working for a less bureaucratic and more effective REACH.
Harmut Nassauer (CDU) welcomed the decision to postpone the initial deadline (the Competitiveness Council of 28/29 November) for political agreement on REACH, but admitted this postponement didn't solve anything. To get Germany on board, the British Presidency agreed to postpone the in-depth political debate on REACH until the plenary at the end of November, but is still hoping to get political agreement before the end of the year. A special Council may be organised to this effect, probably on 23 December.