EUROPEAN REVIEW

ISSUE 36 - Page 3

Firstly all substances that cause cancer, reproduction problems or persistent problems in the human body must be substituted unless three conditions are met. These are ‘suitable alternative substances or technologies do not exist’…‘it is demonstrated that the social or economic advantages outweigh the risks’ and that the risk is ‘adequately controlled’.  Even then authorisation would only be given for five years. Secondly, as well as a general duty of care for manufacturers, importers and users of chemicals to prevent, limit or remedy any adverse effects on the environment or human health they will again have to prepare a chemical safety report for substances produced in quantities of between 1 and 10 tonnes a year. Thirdly the committee wants the new law to encourage the European Commission, the Member States and the companies to fund new ways of testing substances that do not involve animals, in conjunction with a new European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. Several other measures were voted for by the committee including help for small and medium sized businesses to implement the new		directive, a greater say by the parliament over the operation of theproposed European Chemicals Agency and the creation of a quality mark or label to show that a product complies with all the requirements of the new law. Reactions were split along predictable lines, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) welcomed the vote and called on the Council of Ministers to endorse it; however, for the employers, UNICE President Ernest-Antoine Seillière, said: ‘The outcome in the Parliament’s Environment Committee is disappointing as it does not take into account the Council’s proposals towards a workable and smart approach based on the concept of adequate control of risk’. If the Parliament and the Council can agree a way forward the law could be in force as early as next year, the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has already been designated as the ‘competent authority’ to regulate it in Britain and has set up a help desk. Users would then have 11 years to register about 30,000 untested chemicals.
	Guido Sacconi MEP, guiding the law through parliament

Pressure for public services law builds up

WITH THE MORE HARMFUL POSSIBLE EFFECTS of the controversial ‘Bolkestein directive’, on liberalising the EU service sector, having been neutralised and the law as good as agreed, trade union attention has turned to ensuring such a thing cannot be proposed again. The favoured approach is to ask for a new law which positively defines public services so as to protect them from any further deregulation. The problem is that only the European Commission has the power to initiate legislation at EU level and they have proved remarkably reluctant to start the process. Following the introduction of a draft directive by the Socialist group (see our last issue) the European Parliament has recently adopted the Rapkay report which called for a general legal framework for public services. This would include a guarantee of ‘locally controlled, democratic, public services’, ensuring ‘local authorities have capacity to provide public services’ including ‘in-house’ while recognising that payment for carrying out public service obligations is not classed as state aid. As public services are essential for social cohesion according to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the report says that providing them should take precedence over any treaty rules that contradict this.
With the report’s approval the European Parliament has now called for a public services directive three times in the last five years. According to Carola Fischbach-Pyttel of the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), ‘The EP has shown that it is in tune with citizens’ needs. The pressure is now on the Commission to stop stalling’. However Commission President Barroso, speaking in the parliament on the day before the report was adopted, refused to accept that there were any limits on the internal market, even when it came to public services, and stated that there should be no regulation to favour them. Promises of a new communication on the issue in December were not enough for unions as Ms.Fischbach-Pyttel said that ‘His point blank refusal to answer is an affront to those users and workers who must rely on public services’.