Parliament's President Josep Borrell said, "The European Parliament has shown that it lives up to its responsibilities and, as legislator, has responded to some of the fears of the Europeans, ensuring competitive jobs together with a high level of protection of health and the environment."
The main elements of the position of the European Parliament on REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) adopted today by 398 votes in favour, 148 against and 36 abstentions (The actual vote on the report was 407 in favour, 155 against with 41 abstentions) are the following:
On registration:
The compromise reached by the PES, the EPP-ED and the ALDE groups was endorsed by plenary by 438 votes in favour, 144 against and 15 abstentions. This compromise is based on the following elements:
Introduction of a targeted approach on data requirements for 1-10 tonnes chemicals (those having been identified by the impact assessment studies as being the ones for which costs of REACH implementation would be higher)
Maintain, in all cases, the responsibility on industry to make available information on the hazards, risks, and risk reduction measures for chemicals ("burden of proof")
Application of the above targeted approach only to existing substances; new substances continue to provide full safety data. Substances of high concern and substances dangerous to human health or environment which are used in consumer products also have to provide full sets of safety data.
Introduction of the possibility of making additional tests, if this appears necessary
Introduction of the possibility of omitting certain tests ("waiving") for the substances produced/imported between 10-100 tonnes when this is justified on the basis of certain criteria (to be fixed by the Commission in comitology)
Introduction of the "One Substance, One Registration" (OSOR) approach to minimise costs, with an opt-out in specific conditions where it can be justified
On Authorisation:
The European Parliament endorsed by 324 votes in favour, 263 against and 13 abstentions the approach of the Environment Committee which is based on the following elements:
Consideration of available substitutes, innovation through time-limited authorisations (5 years), and certainty through a list of the most hazardous substances. Early registration of these chemicals.
On Substances in Articles:
The EP endorsed by 291 in favour, 290 against and 16 abstentions a slightly revised version of the approach adopted on this issue by the Environment Committee:
Equal treatment of imported articles to those produced in the EU, through simple notification requirements for articles containing substances listed as being of very high concern, and by equal application of authorisation.
For SMEs:
The EP endorsed the approach of the Environment Committee (supported also by Internal Market and Industry Committees) seeking at providing:
Helpdesks and additional guidance and tools to meet the obligations of the regulation.
On the Agency:
The EP endorsed the approach of the Environment Committee (supported by Internal Market and Industry Committees) seeking to:
Strengthen the Agency's role for evaluating dossiers and substances, while at the same time maximising the use of Member States’ expertise on substance evaluation.
On animal testing:
The European Parliament endorsed the approach of the Environment Committee seeking to:
Minimise animal testing through regular adaptation of testing methods and avoidance of duplication.
What's next?
The Council, under the UK Presidency, should reach a common position. The UK Presidency has indicated that it aims to achieve a common position by the end of the year.
Reactions of the political groups
Just before the final vote, Guido Sacconi (PES, IT), the rapporteur said he had asked to speak since he had feared the vote would go differently, but instead the vote had been very positive, it had strengthened the balance of the regulation, especially concerning authorisation. Overall, the vote had been very strong.
Ria Oomen-Ruijten (EPP-ED, NL) said that they won concerning registration but lost concerning authorisation, a very narrow majority had been reached concerning the most important points.
Lena Ek (ALDE, SE) said that the ALDE was happy since the environmental aspects had been strengthened.
Hartmut Nassauer (EPP-ED, DE) said that he could not support the vote on authorisation, but he supported the vote on registration - the only subject which had been adopted with qualified majority; he rejected the vote on authorisation, which, he said, had to be corrected by Council.
Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL, SE) said that the vote was too weak, especially concerning the compromise on registration, but on authorisation it was positive. As he put it, better a weak REACH than no REACH.
Carl Schlyter (Greens/EFA, SE) said that the outcome of the vote on authorisation was a positive result, but he feared that it would be changed in Council; the majority of his group could not vote in favour of the report.
Johannes Blokland (IND/DEM, NL) said that the majority of his group would vote against the report.
Alessandro Foglietta (UEN, IT) said his group was happy with the registration part but not with the authorisation section of the report.
