Westminster Hall Sitting of 9 September 2004

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

REACH
[Relevant documents: Within REACH: the EU's new chemicals strategy—Sixth Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 172-I, and the Government's response thereto, Seventh Special Report, Session 2003–04, HC 895.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
2.30 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: I am very pleased and proud to present the sixth report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, "Within REACH: the EU's new chemicals strategy". This was an intensive inquiry into a very serious issue. The Select Committee has deliberated, agitated and cogitated on this European initiative and draft regulation, which seeks to register, evaluate and authorise the use of chemicals—REACH—and to establish a European Chemicals Agency. We want a fast, efficient and workable process to test and screen chemicals, about which we will say more soon. The Committee has added to that, and the Government support, a one substance-one registration scheme. We also want compulsory information from companies about consortiums, which we will also say more about, and to ensure that we have the mechanisms to give serious consideration to the use of animals in tests. We also want to have a really effective and functional European chemicals industry.
First, let me say something about the inquiry, which was announced on 29 October 2003. We wanted to examine the principles behind the legislation, which we believe to be important, and we believe that our Government should play a major part in taking that forward. We wanted to see what amendments we might need to make to the legislation, and what the implications of those amendments would be. We also wanted to examine the significant role that the Government have played and what action they might take as we enter the final stages of the legislative process.
We published our report on 12 May 2004, and held four evidence sittings, which were all important and interesting. One sitting involved the World Wildlife Fund, the British Retail Consortium and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. We talked to Dr. Delbeke, the European Commission's director-general of environment, and to Mr. Liikanen, the European Commissioner for Enterprise and Information Society, on their home pitch in Brussels. We also talked to the Chemical Industries Association and to the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality, whom I am very pleased to see in the Chamber today and who has played a significant part in the development of the British response. The Committee held meetings in Brussels with WWF and CEFIC—the European Chemical Industry Council—and had the oral evidence sittings that I mentioned.
326WH
Chemicals are all around us: in our cosmetics, in our food and in our homes. Each year, some 400 million tonnes of chemicals, including thousands of new concoctions and conglomerates of chemicals, come on to the market and into our lives. For a very long time, there has been concern that the combined effect on our lives of so many chemicals may have detrimental effects on our health and our environment. That, I believe, is where the Europeans are coming from and the reason for the legislation. Indeed, many of us have been concerned about this issue for many years. More will be said about particular concerns as today's debate develops.
Chemical technology does, of course, move on. Nanotechnology is the buzzword of the minute, and the Committee produced a report on it. There are many new skin care compounds to improve our skin and our beauty, although the latter is not something that any of us here today have to worry about—beauty is not a word that is associated with anyone in this place.
Dr. Desmond Turner: My hon. Friend will get into trouble if he carries on like that.
Dr. Gibson: My beautiful hon. Friend has identified trouble immediately, which is good.
Nanotechnology is still partly non-regulated, so today's debate will filter into that field as well. Our Government and other Governments have identified that as a fast-growing area in terms of the needs of those who inhabit this world and the development of new products.
I enjoyed reading a book this summer—it is not often that we in this place have the chance to read a real book. It is by Bill Bryson and is entitled "A Short History of Nearly Everything". It should be compulsory reading in every school. He asks the sort of questions about science and technology that are so important to young people—"Why doesn't the sun fall out of the sky?" or "What is the weight of the earth?"—all questions that are never answered because the curriculum gets in the way.
Bill Bryson took three years to do research on the book, including on chemicals. He said that by the beginning of the 20th century, many consumer products involved the use of chemicals and that caused problems. He makes particular mention of lead, a compound that featured in many people's lives, and still does. There are lead solders and lead-lined tanks; there are pesticides that contain lead; and toothpaste tubes and motor fuel both contain lead. We have known for some time about paints containing lead. Bannisters have been painted with such paint, and young people have been known to chew them. I have never chewed a bannister, but many young people find bannister-chewing important, and lead gets into their bodies as a result.
There have been many important epidemiological studies, in which people have looked at the IQ of pupils in schools near places such as Spaghetti junction, where the lead in the air pollutes young bodies—and old bodies, too. It seems to have an effect on behavioural patterns, although some argue against that.
Tetraethyl lead has the advantage that it stops engines knocking. Industries in the United States, and particularly General Motors, Dupont and Standard Oil,

327WH
joined together and skilfully managed to keep the market going for lead by naming it ethyl—despite the pronunciation, it is not a woman's name—which kept lead out of the headlines. The health effects of lead in the air were known, including its effect on the brain—it causes delusions of grandeur and the kind of stuff often seen around here—and on IQ, behaviour and so on. The industry's answer, with a skilful campaign, was to say that workers who were shown to have lead in their blood samples and in their bodies had been working too hard; it was suggested that it was the cause of their mental health problems and that they should slow down a little.
We know more now; we have moved on in the last 50 or 60 years. The Clean Air Acts have allowed us to remove lead and so on from the air, and later from our paints; in 1986 it was taken out of solder in the United States, and in 1993 it was taken out of paints in the US. However, even in February 2001, industry was saying that lead had no ill effects on health; industry was defending it and was still using it in various products. The use of lead has benefits, such as producing petrol that prevents engines knocking, but it also has a downside in its effects on health. That is the paradox that is faced by science, as new products and new technologies come on to the scene: we need to balance the benefits and the problems in our attitude to the use of lead.
The report, and the work done by various other groups, is about chemicals and their effect for good or bad. REACH abolishes the distinction between new and existing chemicals, but that will result in a huge backlog of testing. A 1 tonne threshold has been mentioned as a starting level for testing. If that is the criterion, it is estimated that something like 30,000 substances will enter the REACH process. That huge body of work will involve an awful lot of people and resources.
As for registration, we would have to attempt to include data on chemicals manufactured in or imported into the EU. On evaluation, we would consider establishing whether tests were required and what chemicals should be subjected to the authorisation process. Substances could be banned or their use restricted, or they could continue in production if they were adequately controlled, no suitable alternatives existed or there were socio-economic implications. A huge debate revolves around all the information that we are trying to access.
A balanced approach has had to be taken and nothing has been written in tablets of stone. We all know that asbestos is a substance that was considered safe—indeed, many people still think that it is safe. We have now moved on and even this week I heard that people can now take asbestos and turn it into less unhealthy compounds that might be beneficial to people's lives, but that remains to be seen. I stress that the 30,000 substances need to have a priority of registration under which they are scrutinised. We must examine the intrinsic hazard of the substance. The industry and science community often prefer a risk-based system that takes into account the exposure levels in respect of the
328WH
substance but, to begin with, the Committee regards the volume measures as a proxy for looking at exposure. We cannot start on day one examining 30,000 substances.
Bob Spink: Does the Chairman of the Committee recall that the exact words used were not "proxy" but "crude proxy"?
Dr. Gibson: I accept that it was a crude proxy system.
We recommended that the approach remain, but that it should be refined with the introduction of a single pre-registration phase, so that highly toxic, low production volume chemicals could be dealt with more quickly and high production volume chemicals of lower risk dealt with later by, for example, employing advanced computational techniques. We talked about one substance-one registration—a key element in the Government's position—that encouraged the formation of consortiums to share testing data. I am aware that this week in the health service we found out that much information was skulking away in the undergrowth, hidden by companies that will not divulge it and which devoted their energies to giving it to other people to save a lot of time. Consortiums are the way ahead. We want them to share animal test data, for example.
For goodness sake, the issue of animal testing is a real up-front problem in science. We examined animal testing. I shall not talk about terrorism and other aspects of it. But if we are serious about animal testing, we must bear it in mind that there is no evidence in the REACH proposals about how many animals might be involved, whether they be fish, birds or vertebrates, and that there has been no hard-line assessment of what might accrue from such regulations. Moreover, sometimes it seems that we pay lip service to alternative methodology. Groups such as the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments have been bashing away for years with alternative ways of assessing chemicals—from the chemical formula, the nature of the compound and what we know from past similar compounds and data. By doing so, they have saved a lot of hard-line animal experimentation, which is not only costly, but not popular with many people in this country and throughout the world.
Bob Spink: Does the Chairman accept, that subsequent to the Committee's investigations, questions in the House and investigations by other bodies revealed that as many as 5.4 million additional animals could be tested under the REACH proposals in the phasing period of REACH alone?
Dr. Gibson: I am grateful for that information. I am not sure that 5.4 million is the final figure. There are many arguments about that. I am certain, however, that the figure is not in the 10s, 20s or 30s. Science moves forward and we are proud of the information from Sir John Sulston and others in the Cambridge laboratories about the human genome, in which Britain has been at the forefront for many years now, and for which we have won Nobel prizes. Understanding how those genes work in animal models necessitates work in the scientific community with animals. We need to assess that with an open, honest appraisal of how many other animals and what types of animals will be involved.

329WH
The British public still, in general, support such experiments where information is found out that will improve people's health. However, if they think that it is being done willy-nilly just because it is part of some process that has to be gone through, we will soon lose the argument, and not merely in terms of the current issues: the movement will grow and will make it difficult to handle the new information that comes forward.
I feel that we have to do a certain number of animal experiments. However, I know from practical experience that although we say that we look for alternatives before we approve research, it is halfhearted. It is not a full-fledged development of new computational techniques, tissue culture experiments and so on. During our inquiry, we talked to people who vehemently, passionately and enthusiastically believe that we do not need to use any animals at all. There is a huge spectrum of opinion about the subject, and if we fail to address it we do so at our peril: not only in terms of the REACH legislation, but in terms of the whole scientific progression in genetics and human health, and the improvements that we hope to make.
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): This is an important issue, which needs to be kept clearly in perspective. If there are to be alternatives to animal testing, and we are to keep animal testing to a minimum, there needs to be the sort of engagement to which my hon. Friend has referred. When I have had correspondence from people promoting ideas, I have asked officials immediately to engage with them and to consider the options proposed.
I should make it clear that part of the Government's overall objective in negotiating the regulation is to ensure that animal testing is kept to the minimum necessary to protect human health and the environment. One of the ways in which we aim to do that is by applying an intelligent approach to testing. I very much welcome the Committee's views on that and the engagement that my hon. Friend is arguing for, in order to ensure that every opportunity is taken to develop and promote the use of alternatives.
Dr. Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend. I am glad that we are in harmony, but such action has to be seen to be done. We need to be able to sell it to the public, as it were. We have to get John Humphrys and company on side, too. They are almost always too ready to knock science when they get an opportunity. I am pleased that the Government have put money into alternative research, taking us away from animal experimentation. We must ensure that more goes into that, and that the centre of such action is not just a token but is well staffed, well funded and committed, so that soon we have something to sing about when it comes to the alternatives that might be available.
Geraint Davies: We would all like a minimisation of animal experiments. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key drivers of REACH is the protection of animals, whether it concerns endocrine disruption in polar bears or whatever? The whole point of the proposals is the future of the environment and all our species. Those who say, "I am
330WH
for saving animals" should be thinking about the bigger picture of the future of the planet and safe chemicals for the world.
Dr. Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend. He makes a good case for appearing on Radio 4 to make that very argument. Many people do just that; the chief executive of the Medical Research Council has appeared and others have done so this week, for example, to explain why the legislation will help to deflect the problems concerning not just animals but humans. He mentioned endocrine disruptors. I do not think that any of us want to change sex overnight, but there is plenty of evidence that molluscs and other organisms in our environment do so. That is not natural, and is prompted by chemicals. I read today, for example, that even bracken releases chemicals into the water that may have cancer-inducing effects.
The vigilance that we are beginning to show is to be welcomed; research into the environmental arena is growing apace, and must be carried out. We must be able to assess chemicals, not on the basis of the suffering that they cause in the world, but in an environment where they are under control. We can then make balanced judgments and ensure that we have hard evidence that will stick when it is presented to the public. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) explained very well, we are moving in that direction.
The chemical industry has outlined several problems with the one substance-one registration approach. There are problems with getting consortiums together, cost-sharing, confidentiality, different risk assessments, chemical identity and so on. I sometimes feel that it is easy for people to prevent things from happening, but the Chemical Industries Association has, on balance, been positive and has welcomed the proposals while trying to identify mechanisms for assessing the process and putting it into practice. Working in industry and getting industries to work together is not the easiest thing in the world given the handle of confidentiality that they always use to prevent things from happening.
There is much to be gained from promoting the one substance-one registration approach. The legislation could provide incentives and encouragement to form consortiums, although not enough has been done to address that. However, if data-sharing is to be the norm and the formation of consortiums is to be mandatory, the system will not necessarily be workable. In saying that, I am not bowing down to industry; I am talking about the difficulties involved in making things happen.
As I said, this is not a once-for-all piece of legislation, and we will not simply lie back afterwards. I hope that the legislation will be evolutionary and that we will learn. If bad practice goes against the spirit of REACH, we will take it up and make sure that we move the legislation on. I hope that people will see that we have a great opportunity to benefit the world.
What a chance this is for industry to show that it really cares. MPs are always asked whether they think that this or that company does enough for the environment. I do not know what other right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber say, but I sometimes say, "I don't know" or "Certainly not." However, I know of companies that have taken environmental issues on

331WH
board and that are much more open about not only producing their data at open days in towns and cities, but engaging with schools and helping young people to understand problems.
Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend think that some of the industries and companies that do not participate in a data-sharing consortium might be hiding information and research that suggests that some of the chemicals that they produce are hazardous? If so, should the Government act to elicit that information compulsorily for the public good?
Dr. Gibson:: I live for the day when we have open access to information. The Committee has just produced a report, which is yet to be debated, about open access to information. Such access would mean that nobody had to pay astronomical sums to get data through subscriptions to journals in libraries. It is up front, on the internet, where people should be able to look at publicly funded research. I am talking not about people such as MPs, but about the public accessing open information. A major cancer research charity, Cancer Research UK, challenged pharmaceutical companies this week to produce data on their websites to stop duplication of information and to empower individuals and the public to understand what is going on in that arena. That is an important concept, and it would be one of the most important things we put in a political manifesto.
People want information about drugs, and I do not know why companies hide behind confidentiality so much. Even negative results are worth knowing about, because it is important to know if something does not work. Many people here have probably produced and published negative results. When done well, it will have prevented other people from proceeding, raising questions about why a technology did not work and how it could be modified to make it work.
Richard Ottaway: I am following the hon. Gentleman's arguments with interest; I am always attracted to anything that has electoral popularity. However, is the issue not that the pharmaceutical companies want to be reimbursed for their research? If there were full disclosure, they would lose their investment and the net effect would be that less research would be conducted by such companies. That is a circular argument, but I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's response to it.
Dr. Gibson: I am always sympathetic to people in the pharmaceutical industry, whom I have worked with, when they tell me about the money put into research and development. On the other hand, the industry gets young—and older—people from the public sector to do its work and puts very little back into the educational process that produces those people.
The balance between how much money the industry gets and puts in has to be seriously considered; often there is a one-way transit of support. We have to think about balancing the act and making sure that the industry puts much more back into research. I do not believe that a lot of the industry's information cannot be
332WH
divulged. Pharmaceutical companies publish research work through peer-review journals, and hopefully they will offer access soon. However, generally such companies are moving on the issue because they realise that they should not be seen to hide things. I know that that does not answer every aspect of the matter, but the political dimension is in favour of opening information up to people so that they can balance their judgment.
Every charity that I know in the health field now says that patients should be empowered and that information gives them power. The biggest threat to the general practitioner in this country is the empowered patient with six print-outs from the internet who says, "What about this treatment? What about that treatment?" about which the GP knows nothing. The movement of information is sometimes faster than industry and the health service can handle, and I welcome that. They have to adapt to that.
Alun Michael: The point about data sharing is important. Commercial confidentiality certainly concerns parts of the pharmaceutical industry and other industries in which processes are involved. Will not the benefits of one substance-one registration be realised if all available test data is shared among all EU suppliers? By and large, test data is not commercially sensitive. We need to be careful about the distinction between the type of data that needs to be shared and that for which commercial confidentiality can be maintained and respected.
Dr. Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend, and I absolutely accept that. However, the challenge for us is to get the consortiums and the companies to talk together. They have to move out of the culture in which they have existed and to understand that the REACH proposals give them a great opportunity for advance. The point was made a few minutes ago about how important that might be.
I turn to another important aspect of the proposals: substitution. The Commission's demand for the substitution of chemicals of high concern is a very contentious area. Our friends in the environmental nongovernmental organisations are concerned that the proposals would allow companies to argue that a chemical can be "adequately controlled" and remain on the market. On the other hand, industry argues that the substitution of toxic chemicals is already taking place, but that it is a complex process requiring the involvement of all parts of the supply chain. It argues that enforced substitution would result in a significant loss of products from the market. I am sure that it believes that, but there is a serious argument to be had.
The Committee had acrimonious debates on this issue, but it did not conclude that the proposed requirements for substitution were excessively onerous. If a substance of high concern is involved, it seems reasonable to argue that authorisation should require that attention should be given to the use of alternatives. We do not contest the fact that that would impose a burden on companies, but nor should they contest the importance of ending the production of substances of high concern. We say that substitution is acceptable, provided that adequate control is interpreted so that the

333WH
risks of exposure to humans or to the environment are remote, during and after the lifecycle of the product.
Substitution is an essential element of the legislation and it must be encouraged, but the issue is whether we enforce it or whether we have a pragmatic trust, as it were, that it will happen. That is why we have come down in the middle way—a phrase that my right hon. Friend will recognise from other aspects of his political endeavours.
Alun Michael: May I ask my hon. Friend to protect his political respectability by referring to the third way rather than the middle way?
Dr. Gibson: I apologise; I get muddled with the hunting with dogs debate—after all this time.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that substitution does not always work? The outstanding example is the replacement of ammonia in domestic refrigeration with Freons. We all know what damage to the environment Freons have caused, and we are now substituting them in turn. It is not a simple issue.
Dr. Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Of course what he says is true. The substitute must be as adequately and thoroughly tested as anything that it replaces. The REACH proposals give us the opportunity to do that. We do not want to substitute something with something worse.
I do not want to go on about the European Chemicals Agency. We are all in favour of it. We want it to be tough and rough, and to ensure that things happen—I am sure that it will.
Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that without lowering cost or legislative compulsion there is no incentive for a producer of hazardous chemicals to make a substitution once that has been deemed advisable for public health, and that therefore we should move towards a mandatory and precautionary stance and not dilly-dally?
Dr. Gibson: My hon. Friend is much more radical than the Committee was on the issue. My instinct is with him; I think that the stance will have to be like that in certain quarters. In some industries—not necessarily in all—we will have to impose some mandatory condition. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend the Minister says in reply to the debate, because some industries are much further advanced and innovative in developing substitutes. It is part and parcel of their innovation culture, to which I now turn.
Innovation is a challenge for all industry. It is part and parcel of the trade policy in this country to innovate in all aspects of technology, science and so on. We are aware of the increased money that the Chancellor has provided in the comprehensive spending review and how he has accentuated innovation. Innovation is a simple word that trips off the tongue rather easily, but it is a complex process. We must examine the chemical industry and ask ourselves how successful it has been in innovating, because there cannot be substitution without an innovation process that is encouraged,
334WH
supported and works. We think that the challenge is there for the industry and that innovation should be encouraged. We know that resources have been invested in innovation; many people feel that more should be put in. It will be interesting to see how the industry handles the matter.
Incidentally, given that the young and bright people—as well as some older people—enter the industry from academic chemistry, it is important that we do not allow chemistry departments and, indeed, physics departments to close down, as has been happening during the past few years. Steps are being taken by the Government to examine that process so that such places cannot be closed down without a thorough annual examination of what is happening in the community.
More than that, in our schools and education we need to extol the virtues of chemicals—we should consider their benefits, how we assess them, and the kind of problems that we have been discussing and that we will hear more about today—so that young people get excited about inventing new chemicals and substitutes, and so that they know about how they are tested and developed, and how one gets into the markets. Such education in this country needs a radical rethink, yet we stutter towards it in politics. We address an issue here and an issue there, we move forwards and say the right things, but here is a great chance for the chemicals industry to move forward a strategy that is so needed for science and technology, in order to promote interaction between academia, industry and all the other groups that parade around this vital area for our development. What a chance for innovation—absolutely vital to making inroads into chemical developments.
The Department of Trade and Industry's chemical innovation and growth team concluded that innovation is essential to the future success of the chemicals industry. The industry has a long tradition of innovation, but in recent years its record of product innovation has been less strong: much of it is characterised by incremental change and it spends below the international average. The DTI research and development scoreboard points to under-investment by the United Kingdom chemicals industry. In 2001, average spend was 2.2 per cent. of sales compared with an international average of 4.2 per cent. Furthermore, spending is only a proxy for innovation, as it covers more than just research and development. Such under-investment has been a persistent finding over the years, which the CIA recognises.
The UK would be expected to meet the international average, given that speciality consumer products form a large part of the UK industry. We have bright people and good industries, and we need encouragement for that. We certainly should not have a youth policy that is based on the closure of departments in our educational establishments.
In recognising the difficulties and problems, the CIA must impact on innovation in its sector. There have been comparisons with other countries such as Japan. We produce some wonderful scientific papers, such as the recent paper by David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser on nature, and we hold our own in Europe, but if we look beneath the surface at what we are producing for the benefit of our people, we see that this country does not punch its weight. The CIA made

335WH
strong arguments about its problems, but it seems to be weeping and whingeing a little rather than getting on and showing strong initiative.
I sympathise, as does the Committee, with the environmental NGOs that argue that REACH will be a strong driver for innovation, and that if the substitution of chemicals of concern becomes mandatory, as they would like, a demand for new and safe chemicals would be created. That is a challenge. I look forward to the chemicals industry's response to that, not just in paperwork but at the coalface. We need support from the Government and the chemicals industry working together to produce innovation. The Committee agrees that REACH will be very supportive of that.
The Committee welcomes REACH, which is so much better than what has gone before, because it recognises the problems and hazards for our environment, individuals and so on. It will not necessarily be an all-encompassing solution, but we have come a long way in a few years. I welcome the fact that the Government have spent time on this area, have made suggestions, and have shown real commitment to taking up the issue to move things forward. It is exciting, but we have to make sure that things happen and that we are not left with a piece of paper gathering dust.
3.9 pm
Bob Spink: I thank the Committee and its civil servants for all their efforts on this important subject, which will affect all our lives over the coming years. I suspect that I shall take a different line from those on the Government Front Bench, and perhaps from those on my own Benches—I have certainly done so in the past, such as with the common fisheries policy throughout the 1990s.
REACH comes from a questionable stable: the European Commission. It is a new European regulatory framework for chemicals. The European Commission has produced some crazy ideas in the past. I refer hon. Members to the common fisheries policy, which was set up with three basic objectives 20-some years ago. The first was to help fishermen and the second was to conserve fish stocks. It was also intended to help fishing-related onshore industries.
We can see what has happened: the number of fishermen has been decimated, our fleet and onshore industries have been destroyed, and fish stocks have been destroyed, to the clear detriment of our environment and food chains. Why should we now have confidence in REACH to help our industry or to achieve its pre-eminent objective of improving safety? Looking back on our experience, we must ask questions, and that is what I want to do.
The UK chemical industry is very important to our economy. It is the third largest in Europe and the sixth largest in the world. The UK operates in a global, not a European-focused, market. The industry supports many jobs in the UK and it has for many years provided great innovation, which has in turn brought great benefit to mankind in general, and to the environment. Innovation has of late slowed down, and part of the impact of the REACH proposals will be to slow it down even further. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon,
336WH
South (Richard Ottaway) was involved in an exchange on that matter, so I shall not pursue it now.
The REACH proposals are a potential nightmare of massive proportions. The 10 commandments have 94 words, the American declaration of independence has 634, but the EU REACH legislation has 498,124 words. [Laughter.] That may be amusing, but it is extremely dangerous.
Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Bob Spink: I shall in a moment.
The legislation is highly complex. It comes in six volumes covering 1,328 pages, and I doubt whether many people understand it or its full implications and potential. It will be a lawyers' and environmental campaigners' charter for mischief. I give way to the Minister, but not before asking him whether he has read all the REACH proposals.
Alun Michael: I spent a good deal of time in recent months reading a great deal about the REACH proposals, their full content and their implications. I do not pretend to be a chemist or a technocrat, but I want to bring people together on important issues such as this.
The hon. Gentleman said at the outset that he intended to make an idiosyncratic speech—those can be attractive contributions in debate—but does he agree that it is not the number of words that is important, but whether they are the right words, taking us in the right direction? Does he acknowledge that the UK chemicals industry, which is extremely important and innovative—a leading industry—has engaged positively with the REACH proposals? It has engaged with those who have various other concerns, and is showing maturity in trying to ensure that REACH will be practical and will achieve the Government's objective of protecting human health and the environment without undermining its own competitiveness.
Bob Spink: I am grateful for that intervention. I accept that the chemicals industry has been mature and responsible in its response. It has little choice, after all. It is a responsible industry, which adds much to our society and our economy and will continue to do so in future, given the opportunity.
I do not accept that my contribution is idiosyncratic. I have a duty to explore the issues and expose the problems and I will try to do that. If that gives discomfort to people who do not seek to look fully at the issues, that is their problem, not mine. I am also concerned that the legislation will lead to massive claims against the industry because of the shift of burden of proof. That may not be in the best interests of society at large, but only time will tell.
I shall take Members through the seven claims and objectives of the enormous regulatory framework that we face. The first objective, a substantial one, is the
"Protection of human health and the environment".
That is key and laudable. We all want to do that, but no evidence has been adduced that REACH will achieve that. In fact, anything that is toxic or damaging to the environment or human health or which is likely to cause a problem will be dealt with, can be dealt with and must

337WH
be dealt with under current regulations. If the Minister, any member of the Science and Technology Committee, anyone in the industry or any environmental non-governmental organisation is aware of any substance that may be causing a problem, such as lead or anything else, they have a duty to bring it forward now and have it dealt with under current rules and regulations. Those mechanisms are quite capable of dealing with the problem and will do so firmly. There is no evidence that there are issues waiting to be discovered by such a massive burden of legislation, which may be detrimental to that purpose in the longer run.
Sue Doughty: As the non-scientist in the Chamber, I suspect that I speak on behalf of ordinary people. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that we must wait until we find out that something is toxic and allow it to accumulate in the environment before we discover which chemical causes the problem? Surely the objective of the proposals is to introduce an element of precaution, as so much damage has been done in the past by waiting to see what turns up.
Bob Spink: The hon. Lady is right that it is necessary always to be one step ahead of the game and to look for toxicity, bioaccumulation and other things, but that is what scientists do now. Nobody has their head buried in the sand waiting for the legislation in question to rescue the world. Perhaps the proposals will deliver that objective, but perhaps risk-based legislation would do so more effectively. That is the thesis of my argument, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to outline it.
The second objective of the REACH proposals is to
"Maintain and enhance the competitiveness of the EU chemical industry".
There is no evidence that REACH will do that, although the Committee received lots of evidence that the proposals would do the opposite. In fact, one study predicted the loss of more than 2 million jobs in Germany alone. The evidence is quite contrary to the achievement of the second objective, which is a trend that we shall see as I go through the rest of the objectives.
The third objective is to
"Prevent the fragmentation of the internal market".
REACH may well achieve that: it may bring the UK operation more into line with the European operation, which I would interpret as levelling down the UK industry's competitiveness to EU average levels. I do not know whether there is a conspiracy to level down competitiveness in the UK or whether that result will be an instance of the law of unintended consequences, but much EU legislation has removed the UK's economic and competitive advantage over Europe. I simply place that in front of those in this Chamber.
The fourth objective is to "Increase transparency", which in some ways REACH will do, although at the cost of competitiveness and, possibly, innovation. Certainly, in bringing forward the proposals there has been a great lack of transparency about costs, the numbers relating to animal testing and other things, and that does not bode well for the objectives.
338WH
The fifth objective is to "Integrate with international efforts". The proposals certainly will not do that, because the REACH regulations are different from the regulatory systems applied in Japan and the United States of America; those systems are risk-based, unlike the REACH proposals.
The sixth objective is to "Promote non-animal testing". In including that, I think that the Commission was having a laugh. The proposals would increase animal testing, and no one argues that they will not. The Commission talks about "minimising" animal testing, for example, but even the Minister will not say that the proposals would reduce it. It has been variously estimated that 500,000, 2.6 million or 5.4 million additional animals will be tested on in REACH's phasing period alone, as the Committee is well aware. I was deeply saddened that Ministers and the Commission were not prepared to come clean about that fact. That does not bode well for their fourth objective, which, as I said, is to increase transparency.
The seventh and final objective is to
"Conform to EU international obligations under the WTO".
Well, REACH may well do that; we do not know, although we do know that the proposals are massive and probably unworkable.
I therefore put it to the Chamber that the objectives and claims fail miserably. They have little communion with the truth, evidence or even common sense. However, I can confirm that the legislation will have one impact that will please Ministers: the proposals will generate thousands of new jobs for bureaucrats, bean-counters, pen-pushers and wealth-absorbers across Europe, albeit at the expense of tens of thousands of jobs among wealth-creators.
Paragraph 3 of the introduction to the report says:
"Our inquiry took as its starting point the acceptance that REACH was the only system under discussion at this stage in the legislative process"—
in other words, REACH was the only game in town. That may be so, but I hoped that we would say that there were other options available for regulation, such as the systems used in Japan and America, and that it would have been more useful to investigate other areas, too.
Dr. Iddon: I am a little puzzled, because the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Science and Technology Committee and could have made a minority report if he wished. Why did he not do so?
Bob Spink: I did not submit a minority report because I thought that there were some good things in the Committee's report that should come through—
Dr. Gibson: What are they?
Bob Spink: If the Chairman of the Committee can contain himself for a moment, we may come to them. Also, I thought that it was appropriate for the Committee to remain unified.
I am approaching the issue from the viewpoint that past European legislation has gone wrong. I fear that more such legislation will go wrong if we do not address the issues. I am not criticising the report so much as

339WH
encouraging the Minister to review thoroughly what is happening and to think carefully before signing up to something that will—
Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Bob Spink: I will when I have finished answering the previous intervention. I want to encourage Ministers not to sign up to something that could be extremely detrimental to this country, as the common fisheries policy proved to be.
Alun Michael: I am rather puzzled, because I thought that the report was thoughtful, constructive and agreed unanimously, across parties, by the Select Committee. In his contribution so far, the hon. Gentleman has used the type of language that is quite good at attracting headlines. It appears to be a bit of a Eurosceptic rant, rather than a development of the thoughts of the Committee. As I understand it, he is saying that he does not agree with the Committee, of which he was a member. Therefore, it is difficult to see what the relationship is between his remarks and the Committee's report.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) wants to make a Second Reading speech against legislation that is not in front of us, it must be in the context of the debate that we are having.
Bob Spink: I am grateful for that explanation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I accept that some of my comments will be seen as Eurosceptic, but that does not necessarily mean that they are inappropriate. I was called a Eurosceptic when I said that the common fisheries policy would end up destroying our fish stocks rather than conserving them, and I was proved right. However, I trust that I will not be proved right on this occasion. I am encouraging the Government to improve the legislation, so that I am eventually proved wrong. That will be in the interests of the country.
Paragraph 11 of our report states:
"Useful comparisons can be made with the chemical regulatory systems in the USA and Japan."
The paragraph goes on to state that both of them
"employ a risk-based approach to regulation and are cheaper than those currently in operation in the EU."
Colleagues will recall that I said when we were going through the report—and I remain convinced today—that we should not accept this monster legislation en bloc and simply try to make the best of it. That was the starting point of our approach. Paragraph 3 states that
"our energies could best be directed at identifying areas where the legislation could be modified to make it more workable and more effective."
I never accepted that. I strongly encouraged the Committee to look at alternative models and to put them forward for consideration, but it did not accept my view. I acknowledge that I may be wrong and the Committee may be correct, but I reserve the right to stand up and report what actually happened.
340WH
I believe that the Committee should have told the Government that REACH is wrong for the UK, and that we should have looked at other more proven systems that are in use in some of our main international markets. That would have been anathema to people such as the Minister, who thinks that all things EU are good and everything else is bad.
As in Japan and the USA, we should remove substances of low and known risk from further study and focus on substances of greater risk, where persistence, toxicity, bioaccumulation and real threats to mankind, animals and our environment are more probable. Sadly, we have failed to take that approach.
Dr. Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Committee did not look at this legislation entirely from the European perspective? We looked at it from the perspective of science and technology and of benefiting the world and the communities that we serve. We did not look to say that, because it came from Europe, it must be wrong. That was never part of the discussion, but he is implying that it was.
Bob Spink: I am not implying that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he says about what the Committee did. I also accept the charge that he has made against me from another angle—I am Eurosceptic. It is necessary to question what is coming out of Europe and to challenge whether it will be in the best interests of this country, because so much of it is not in our best interests.
I will draw attention to some of the findings in our report to cast light on the weaknesses in the massive REACH proposals. Paragraph 32 states:
"We recommend that the scope of the legislation should be set out clearly and comprehensively to enable unambiguous understanding of what the legislation does and does not cover."
That is a Committee recommendation. Clearly, therefore, the Committee believes that the REACH legislation is ambiguous. It is self-evident that the UK should not proceed with legislation or give competencies to the European Commission where there is obvious ambiguity. The Committee found that there was ambiguity. Paragraph 40 on page 18 states:
"While production volume is a crude proxy for risk, it is a useful starting point."
What a strange statement. I agree with the first part, although production volume is not just a crude proxy—it is no proxy at all. The most dangerous substances are mostly in very small volumes, so volume is not a proxy for risk. I cannot agree with the second part of that statement, which is that volume is useful as a crude proxy, because it is incompatible with the first part of the statement. Risk should have been the criterion that was used.
Paragraph 50 on page 22 states:
"There is much to be gained from the promotion of one substance-one Registration."
I agree, although there must be a safer and easier way of achieving that than this 500,000-word piece of legislation.
Chapter 6 on page 30 addresses the testing requirements. We see that the Commission and the Government are very reluctant to reveal the number of animals that will be tested, in addition to those that

341WH
would otherwise be tested as a direct result of the REACH proposals. I can see why the Commission and the Government should be reluctant to give out that information, but what does that tell us about REACH objective 4, which is to increase transparency? The lack of honesty about the number of animals to be tested can give no confidence at all to anyone about REACH or about the intentions of those who are trying to drive it forward without properly revealing what the circumstances will he.
What are the Government doing to promote non-animal testing? The answer is not very much. They are doing little to develop new methodologies, to carry out research into non-animal testing techniques or to invest money in the sector. This is a very important area, but the Government are doing very little. The token approach is simply warm words, but that will not wash with the British public. We have assertion without foundation and warm words but no action, so there is no change there from this Government.
I am deeply worried that the regulators of the highly complex and contentious area of substitution—the new centralised and powerful agency—and REACH will make undue and very damaging demands on the industry. The Chemical Industries Association is also worried about the matter and has rightly called for a pragmatic approach to substitution. Whether it gets it is open to conjecture. We will see, but I raise that important issue now.
It would, of course, be wrong for the legislation to be affected by political self-interest or used as a bargaining counter, which is often the case in legislation and pan-European politics. We all know what happens then—we get an expensive, ineffective, nonsense solution, such as EU Parliaments sitting in Brussels for three weeks, moving to Strasbourg every fourth week and then going back to Brussels. Why has the REACH HQ been put in Helsinki, rather than where the centres of chemical engineering excellence are? That will affect its operation, costs and effectiveness. Paragraph 112 of the report says:
"Without the necessary skills and experience, the EU's new chemical regulation cannot be fully effective. It is also vital that the European Chemicals Agency attains the confidence of all stakeholders. To achieve this, it must operate in a transparent fashion and decisions must be consistent."
Dr. Gibson: What exactly do the hon. Gentleman's last remarks have to do with Helsinki?
Bob Spink: The decision to place the HQ in Helsinki will remove it from Europe's centres of excellence, which are mostly based around Ispra in Italy. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Committee's recommendation in paragraph 112 on page 40, he will find that it says exactly that.
There are many other issues. For example, the report's conclusion states:
"The Commission has made great strides in its openness".
Clearly, it has not made great strides in openness on costing, animal testing and many other issues—quite the opposite.
The Government's response is inconsistent and gutless. The people of this country want a Government who will stand up for their interests in Europe. They
342WH
want to resist ambiguous, ineffective, politically motivated, politically correct and EU-driven legislation. The Government are simply rolling over on REACH, as they have done on so many other EU issues. I get the strong feeling that the Prime Minister, who personally promoted the REACH legislation in his trilateral letter, has a personal agenda on the issue, as on other European issues, and it has little to do with improving the safety of chemicals for this country.
The Committee's report is honest, and I thank the other members of the Committee for it. As hon. Members will have gathered by now, I was not in attendance when it was finally approved and passed through. I think that it bows too much to the Government and the Prime Minister's wider European political ambitions. It raises questions to which the Government have given no real answers. The Government should reject REACH as it is currently proposed and seek, on a wider front, to renegotiate the UK's position in Europe for the benefit of our people and our country. REACH will be to our chemicals industry what the common fisheries policy, which was much lauded at the time, ended up being to our fishing industry unless the Government get their act together and dramatically improve these half a million words of legislation.
3.39 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: As a professional chemist, the chairman of the all-party group on the chemical industry and a member of the Select Committee, I regret to say that, in some quarters, the word "chemical" has almost become synonymous with nasty. Yet, as the Chairman of the Committee said, life would not function without chemicals. Whatever we eat, drink, touch or see is built of chemicals; indeed, we ourselves are built of chemicals. Fortunately, medicines are considered to be good on the whole, although they, too, are chemicals. As pharmaceutical products, they are not covered by the legislation, although the chemicals that go into them are.
In Europe today, approximately 100,000 chemicals are in circulation, but only about 30,000 of them are produced on a scale larger than 1 metric tonne. A relatively small number of those—as far as I know, about 140 so far—have been identified as requiring immediate attention since 2002, either because they possess carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic properties, or because they accumulate in the natural environment and cause environmental problems. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, WWF, other NGO and consumer groups and, in particular, the scientists working for those organisations have alerted us all to the problems for many years. However, those problems have persisted without Governments or industry taking the notice that our Committee believes that they should have taken.
Chemicals manufactured since 1981 are regulated by 67/548/EEC and those produced before that date are regulated by the EU existing substances regulation—793/93. As a result of the 1981 legislation, about 3,000 chemicals marketed since that date in volumes greater than 10 kg—a significant amount—have been assessed for possible risks to human health and/or the environment. Industry undoubtedly holds much unpublished data that it could share with society without compromising its intellectual property rights.

343WH
The United Kingdom Government brought the lack of effective legislation to the fore at an informal meeting of the European Union's Environment Ministers that was held during the last UK presidency in 1998 in Chester. That resulted in a White Paper entitled "Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy", which the Commission published in February 2001. It published its legislative proposals for the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals on 29 October 2003. Those have, of course, become known as the REACH proposals.
The REACH proposals will enter EU law as a regulation rather than as a directive. That means that member states cannot, for any reason, be exempted from the regulations as they are from directives. That is the first difficulty that I want to flag up. It could cause problems for the accession countries that are not, for various reasons, at the same stage of technical development as other member states.
The key principles of REACH are to protect human health and the environment, to encourage innovation and to improve the European Union's industrial competitiveness. REACH also aims to remedy the accepted weaknesses in the regulatory framework and increase its focus on substances that are of real concern.
The original REACH proposals, which were subjected to an eight-week internet consultation in May 2003—probably the most extensive consultation ever carried out by the EU—met with much opposition from Governments and from the chemicals industry throughout the Union. As a result, modified proposals are to be put to the European Parliament in the spring of next year—had it not been for the elections on 10 June 2004, they would probably have been put by now. Implementation of the REACH proposals is planned for 2008–09.
The importance of the REACH proposals to the Union is reflected in the fact that not one but three Committees are dealing with them—the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy Committee, the Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy Committee and the Legal Affairs and Internal Market Committee.
One of the advantages of the REACH proposals is that they bring together 40 pieces of existing legislation. Governments and industry alike can only welcome that. However, 20 other pieces of relevant legislation have not been consolidated into the REACH proposals. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister why that is. Indeed, our Committee has recommended that the REACH proposals should also cover the emission of hazardous substances.
Alin Michael: I am afraid that I will not be able to answer my hon. Friend's question, as I am not sure what he was referring to. Will he clarify what he is referring to by the consolidation of legislation?
Dr. Iddon: I cannot today give the Minister a list of the 20 items of legislation that are not consolidated. However, we took evidence and I have it in my office somewhere.
Alun Michael: In that case, I offer to answer the question when it is clarified. I shall be happy to follow it through with my hon. Friend.
Dr. Iddon: I thank the Minister for his offer, and I shall certainly pursue it with him.
The Committee recommended that the REACH proposals should cover also the emission of hazardous substances, currently provided for by one piece of legislation that is not consolidated—the EU integrated pollution prevention and control directive, the IPPC directive.
Clearly, a lot of problems remain to be dealt with, as hon. Members have said, and the new legislative proposals are not tough enough to satisfy the demands of the greener organisations. Indeed, striking a balance between the demands of the chemicals industry and the green organisations is creating tensions, and some compromise will have to be reached. As the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) indicated, the UK chemicals industry is the sixth largest in the world and the third largest in Europe, with approximately 3 per cent. of global production. Its sales were worth £26.1 billion in 2000, or 1.2 per cent. of GDP. Many of its products end up in pharmaceuticals, the most successful of all United Kingdom industries. The UK chemicals industry employs 1.7 million people directly, and a further 3.3 million people are dependent on it. We must ensure that the industry's productivity and efficiency are not damaged.
The hon. Member for Castle Point pointed out that regulatory systems exist in the United States and Japan, the two main competitors of the European chemicals industry. They have adopted a risk-based approach that makes them cheaper to implement than REACH will be in the European Union, which is a worry. Their chemical testing is subsidised, which is a further worry. However, the United States high production volume system was criticised even by the United States General Audit Office in 1994 for providing ineffective protection to United States citizens.
It will be hard to devise a European system that allows us to remain competitive in the world market, and that is another major concern for our chemicals industry. To provide a level playing field, worldwide international agreements appear to be extremely necessary. The green organisations claim that Europe will gain an advantage in the worldwide market if we can prove to the rest of the world that the chemicals and chemical products that we are selling are the safest in the world and do not damage the natural environment. In my opinion, that is a worthwhile target, but my worry is that it will take some time and that the European chemicals industry could be put at a serious disadvantage as a result.
Although the European Union has carried out an extended impact assessment of the REACH proposals on the chemicals industry, it was based on the proposals originally put out to consultation. It is felt by many, including the Committee, that further impact assessments should be carried out before implementation. Implementing the proposals will give rise to considerable costs for the industry, but there will be offsetting benefits to society. According to the European Commission, some £50 billion might be saved over 30 years by reducing our exposure to chemicals that currently cause health problems.
I turn to the registration process—the R of REACH. A European Chemicals Agency is to be set up at Helsinki in Finland. Companies that produce or handle [20000-b]

345WH
chemicals will have to submit technical dossiers to the agency on the chemicals or the products containing those chemicals, including safety data obtained by testing. The REACH proposals will apply equally to all chemicals produced in the EU, as well as to those imported from outside the EU. The major concern is therefore that it will be difficult to police the imported chemicals. I am interested to know whether the Minister has considered that aspect.
Within three years of the implementation of the REACH regulations, all carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic chemicals will have to be registered with the European Chemicals Agency, along with high-volume chemicals produced in amounts of 1,000 tonnes or more. It is important to note that high-risk substances will have to be subjected to the authorisation process irrespective of the production volume. Within six years, chemicals produced in amounts of 100 tonnes to 1,000 tonnes will have to be registered. By the 11th year, all low-volume chemicals produced in amounts of 1 tonne to 100 tonnes will also have to be registered. However, there are exemptions for substances whose risks or properties are considered to be well known, such as vitamin C, sucrose, limestone and water—and water is a chemical.
There are also exemptions for some natural products, including minerals and ores, if they are not technically modified during their manufacture and are not classified as hazardous substances according to EU directive 67/548. Cement manufacturers are also pleading for exemption, although the properties of cement are so well known that it should not be difficult for that industry to submit a technical dossier.
There are exemptions for chemicals covered by other EU legislation, such as medicines, radioactive materials, pesticides and biocides. The non-isolated intermediates of chemical processes are also exempt from registration. It has recently been agreed by the Commission that polymers will be exempted, too. However, a fact that is not often quoted is that, in addition to 30,000 production chemicals, a large number of isolable intermediates produced in the chemical industry will also have to be included in the REACH proposals. The figure of 30,000 could even be doubled if the isolable intermediates are transported between one company and another.
Sue Doughty: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, with his experience, has good ways of explaining such technical terms as "isolable" to non-scientific Members. Will he give a layman's description of what he is talking about?
Dr. Iddon: I will; it is a fair point. In the production of an end saleable chemical, there are various stages in the chemical process. The initial chemical is turned by one chemical reaction into another, then by another chemical reaction into another, and finally into the product that is sold. The intermediates are sometimes isolated and are therefore called isolable intermediates.
The Committee asked for clarification on the use of recycled materials. In the Government's response to our report, which was published on 12 July, they have made it clear that recycled materials will also be outside the scope of the REACH proposals, and will be regulated instead through the waste management legislation.
346WH
It makes sense to register first all chemicals, including endocrine-disrupting chemicals, with a known high risk to health and/or the environment. However, there is a lot of criticism of the prioritisation by registration of all other chemicals by their volume of production over the 11-year period.
Industry and some learned societies such as my own, the Royal Society of Chemistry, strongly believe that the registration process should be risk based. Other organisations, such as WWF and the royal commission on environmental pollution, are scathing about the risk-based processes. I believe, and it was the Committee's opinion, that a risk-based process would be preferable. Will the Minister explain why risk-based processes have been excluded from the REACH proposals?
The Committee expressed concern about the shift from the 10 kg production trigger that is applicable to new substances to a figure of 1 tonne for existing substances, although we understand why the shift was accepted after consultation with industry and others. In particular, the burden that might be imposed on some small and medium-sized enterprises was lifted by the change.
Some chemicals produced in low volumes are extremely hazardous, whereas others produced in large volumes are known to be benign. The Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) mentioned, recommended a single preregistration phase for all chemicals in commercial production, so that highly toxic low-volume chemicals can be dealt with quickly and high-volume low-risk chemicals can be left until the end of the process.
The Committee has some concern over the Government's insistence on a one substance-one registration process that would require companies to share their existing data. We understand the reasons for the requirement—in particular the minimisation of animal testing and the reduction of costs to industry—but the Committee believes that it is unworkable.
The Government are recommending the mandatory formation of consortiums of companies producing or using the same chemical, so that a single technical dossier can be submitted to the ECA. There are several problems with that apparently attractive proposition, which are detailed in our report, including the questions of commercial sensitivity and product purity and the problem caused by companies joining the consortiums after their initial formation—freeloaders, as they are often described. How much would such late joiners have to pay to join an already existing consortium? For all those reasons and others besides, the formation of consortiums might prove extremely unwieldy and therefore unworkable.
Although larger companies are expected to carry the costs of the REACH regulations relatively easily, there is a major concern about the impact of the proposals on downstream companies—small and medium-sized enterprises.
Alun Michael: I am a little concerned that my hon. Friend appears to suggest that some of his points challenge the basis of the one substance-one registration approach. They are genuine concerns and we have spent time talking about them with industry and other member states to try to ensure that we can overcome

347WH
them. To take the example of late entrants, there clearly needs to be some means by which a fair contribution can be made. There may be alternatives to compulsory consortiums, such as a lead organisation, that would achieve the same ends. I hope that he will accept that those are challenges to getting an effective system into place and not fatal to the approach that the Government propose.
Dr. Iddon: I hope that I am making it clear that I am not against the REACH proposals; I am trying to flag up the difficulties. Clearly, I am aware that the Minister has discussed such issues with the industry and others, and I thank him for his remarks.
Under the REACH regulations, manufacturers or importers will have to provide downstream users with a safety data sheet for each chemical in the manufacturing process. Alternatives to the REACH proposals have been formulated by a number of organisations; I cite the royal commission on environmental pollution's report, the article by the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments and the more recent report by the British Chemical Distributors and Traders Association. However, the sad thing is that those reports were produced after, rather than before, the event, which makes REACH the only act in town.
All member states will be expected to share the burden of the evaluation of the technical dossier submitted to the ECA in Helsinki. Each member state will check whether the dossier complies with the requirement of the REACH regulations and will evaluate the testing procedures proposed in the dossier to minimise the risk to animals. They will also be required to prioritise their evaluation timetable according to the principles of REACH. The main concern expressed by chemical companies about the evaluation of dossiers and substances by member states is that there should be a level playing field across all the member states in the Union. Our Committee has recommended that the ECA should monitor that process very closely.
An authorisation may be granted by the ECA in Helsinki even for chemicals with known risks if it is shown that the socio-economic benefits arising from the use of those substances outweigh their risk to human health and/or the environment, and if there is no suitable alternative technology available. However, authorisations for chemicals with a known risk will be time-limited and they will be subjected to review. A company submitting such substances for authorisation will be expected to take into account proposals for the substitution of that chemical with another of lesser or zero risk to human health and/or the environment.
The balance in the authorisation process between risks to health and/or the environment, and the benefits to be gained from the use of a chemical or substance will be very difficult to weigh in some cases. I will give an obvious example: DDT—dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane—the well-known insecticide discovered decades ago. Undoubtedly, that substance has destroyed countless mosquitoes, not to mention other insects. Mosquitoes are the deadly malaria vectors that currently kill more than 4 million people worldwide. The other known fact about DDT is that it is very persistent and very bio-cumulative in the environment.
348WH
How will the ECA and the REACH proposals be used to weigh factors such as those? It will be extremely difficult in such cases.
I am also concerned about flame retardants, about which, as a chemist, I have done some research. Those who understand anything about the technical process of a flame retardant quelling or killing a flame will know that an extremely limited number of chemicals are able to do that—I could explain the process, but it is too detailed to do so now. They are mainly polybrominated organic compounds and derivatives of phosphorus and antimony—just the sort of compounds the green organisations love to hate.
When coal fires were common in the United Kingdom, hundreds of children caught fire in front of them wearing various items of clothing, especially nightwear. Using the Consumer Safety Act 1978, the UK Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985 were introduced. They continue to save children's lives today, despite the reduced risk resulting from not having coal fires; we still have gas fires. The regulations require that textiles used in the manufacture of children's nightwear, but, ironically, not adult nightwear, are flame retardant.
On Tuesday 8 May 1979, a fire occurred at the Woolworth's department store in Piccadilly gardens, Manchester. It resulted in the deaths of 10 people and injured 48 others. It was caused by the introduction of polyurethane foam furniture. That was followed, on 13 September of the same year, by the M6 coach disaster, which resulted in a fire at Thelwall in Cheshire. It was caused by a collision, in fog, of 200 vehicles. It left 10 people dead and 60 others injured. Then, on 22 August 1985, the infamous Manchester airport disaster took place. A Boeing 737–236 bound for Corfu with 131 passengers and six crew on hoard caught fire on take off, with the loss of 55 lives.
Those of us who are old enough to remember those important and tragic incidents will also remember that there was a demand at the time for the introduction of flame-retardant materials in contact in domestic and travel situations. The connection between those three disasters is obvious: many of those people who lost their lives did not do so because, for example, of the collision, but because of the emission of toxic fumes resulting from the burning of synthetic materials, including plastics, polymers and textiles. I submit—and others have done so before me—that if those materials had been flame retardant, many of those lives could have saved.
Dr. Gibson: Casting my mind back, I seem to remember that the problem in relation to nightdresses and flame retardants was that young people tended to chew nightdresses and there was the implication that these nasty chemicals were causing cancers. That was the reason that Marks and Spencer had to withdraw them. Is that my hon. Friend's recollection?
Dr. Iddon: There is truth in that statement. This is a typical example of where substitution has played an important role.
In my opinion, the use of flame retardants has saved innumerable lives and if we carry on using them, they will continue to do so. Much could be done to save the environment. Better management of the end of life of

349WH
flame-retardant goods, such as computers, televisions and other electrical equipment, might reduce the accumulation of flame retardants in the environment. We need to do research to look for substitution products. I am very pleased to tell hon. Members that the university of Bolton, as it has become known this week, has an important research group working in that area. I speak to the people involved quite regularly.
Finally, I want to examine some of the impact of the REACH regulations.
Geraint Davies: My understanding is that nobody is arguing against flame retardants. People are simply arguing that, if safer substitutes exist, they should be used.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Can I advise hon. Members that, if they keep intervening, that is fine, but we are now in danger of not being able to fit everybody in?
Dr. Iddon: I take the hint, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I accept the point that you have made.
Many of my constituents work for a firm called Leigh's Paints in Bolton. It makes intumescent paints, which protect steelwork in buildings, which is no longer protected by concrete blocking-in. Architects use exposed steelwork more and more in rather beautiful modern buildings. As well as intumescent paint, Leigh's Paints produces marine paints. The coatings industry is worried about the REACH proposals, as it is a downstream user of chemicals and uses 10,000 chemicals to make 500,000 different products, particularly paints. Leigh's Paints estimates that each of its many different products will require a risk assessment document of approximately 150 pages. The firm is medium-sized and producing such documents will be a particular burden for it as it fights for survival in a competitive world market.
Leigh's Paints also believes that REACH will result in the withdrawal from sale of many useful products that are made in small quantities. I cite the EU's biocidal products directive, which has been associated with a decrease in the number of biocides available to industry from 1,600 before its introduction to only 350 and declining today. The industry has warned me that it may suffer a similar rapid loss of products under the REACH proposals.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd. has pointed out that an average vehicle can be made up of 10,000 different substances containing chemicals that all require REACH documentation. One can imagine the burden placed on that industry by REACH. There are serious worries about the proposals, even among those of us who are chemists and who support them. I hope that in the end we can get them right.
I was going to say a lot about animal testing, but you will be pleased to hear that I will not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member for Castle Point has already referred to the loss of jobs, so I will conclude.
Bob Spink: We all hope that we can make the REACH proposals better, but does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that work needs to be done on them, that they should not be swallowed whole, that nowhere in the
350WH
report does the Committee welcome them—I have just double checked that—and that the vast majority of the report's 34 conclusions and recommendations imply criticism of them?
Dr. Iddon: If I were beginning today, I would not start from this point, but it is now too late to go back over years of negotiations. As I said, the REACH proposals are the best act in town, but we must amend them to make them work. I understand that a lot of work is being done on that and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
In conclusion, the proposals are welcomed by all in principle, but there are so many uncertainties that we have to be careful. In an ideal world, the proposals would be adopted internationally and we would all play on a level playing field in chemical production. We have tried to achieve that through such agreements as the Kyoto protocol, and we know how difficult that has been. Fortunately, the Government's aim is that
"REACH must be streamlined, workable and place the minimum regulatory burden on industry necessary to ensure the adequate protection of human health and the environment."
Fine words, and let us hope that the legislators can deliver. The British Chemical Distributors and Traders Association believes that those objectives cannot be reached by the current proposals, but I hope that it is wrong.
4.9 pm
Geraint Davies: I, too, welcome the REACH proposals and the work of the Committee and the Government, but they do not go far enough.
We are at a crossroads. Chemical production globally is growing at 7 per cent. a year, the value of the global industry is some $2 trillion, and in 2000 production exceeded 400 million tonnes. However, the interesting point is that EU trade constitutes half of the global total and the EU is the world's biggest exporter and importer. The REACH proposals can influence the shape of the markets now emerging in places such as China and the rest of the developing world. At some point soon, we will no longer have the whip hand when it comes to determining the composition of production in new markets that rely on our imports to determine the safety standards that they will then employ.
For that reason alone, I urge the Government and the European Union to adopt a precautionary principle and a mandatory substitution approach rather than a hands-off approach, which in my view is more short-term. Industry is doing what it thinks is good for it, but it is not erring on the side of public health and the needs of our local and global environments. In essence, the idea of relying on adequate control of substances by industry has failed in many instances in the past—lead has been mentioned, as has asbestos. We now know that asbestos will claim the lives of 10,000 people a year by 2010. If a precautionary approach had been taken with asbestos on the known problems at the time, many fewer people would be dying now.
In May, I introduced my own small Bill, the Regulation of Hormone Disrupting Chemicals Bill. It was supported by some 50 Labour MPs, but did not go to an all-out consultation. I was calling for the phased

351WH
substitution of hazardous chemicals with known safe alternatives, based on a precautionary approach and mandatory substitution. The report does not go far enough. The reality is that those people who are producing chemicals and making money out of them and are told that it would be advisable to have a safer substitute, will not do that if the substitute is more expensive or is not more profitable, unless there is a legal requirement or market reason, such as consumer awareness. One cannot rely on consumer awareness of a sophisticated nature of the long-term damage of endocrine disruption, persistence or bioaccumulation. We cannot assume that the general public will know about that.
The key opportunity is to shape the future market that China and others will grow into, to be the first there with innovation, winning a place as the leader of the future. For example, when the Japanese introduced catalytic converters to their car manufacture, making it compulsory, while British manufacturers said, "Oh no, we don't want to do that," who won out in the long term? Obviously, it was the Japanese. There are many other similar examples that I will not use, but what might appear to be a short-term tough approach on the industry, given the state of the global market, may well end up in the interests of British manufacturers.
British manufacturers should move to safer alternatives where the balance of evidence points in that direction. If we do not move towards a more mandatory approach, liability lawsuits will be jumping up downstream. Following recent history, with BSE, GMOs and other areas of concern—some of which are more rooted in real scientific evidence than others—the consumer would have greater trust and confidence in the future.
The emerging evidence from many sources, including the World Health Organisation and WWF, about the accumulation of problems in human beings and various animals points towards a precautionary pre-emptive approach, rather than waiting for such time as we have concrete evidence and the damage has already been done. It is in the interests of our children, our children's children and their rights that we protect them with the environmental regime that we put in place for the future and with the duties that we put on Governments.
The reality is that there is more and more evidence of possible links with cancers, birth defects, genital deformities, reproductive problems, and effects on children's neurological and brain development and immune systems. Some of that evidence is from existing marketed products, about which there are deep and growing suspicions but which are not banned under the current legislative regime. We should be listening to the public and examining accumulated evidence. We all have concerns about the productive efficiency and competitive capabilities of European industry, but there is reason to think that stepping ahead of the marketplace with more visionary consumer protection and factoring in the needs of the environment is the right route for industry, as well as for public health.
If one studies the legal precedents for what has happened in Britain and the European Union, there are cases to be made for the rights of children to a safe environment, the use of the precautionary principle and
352WH
mandatory substitution. The European convention on human rights and our own Human Rights Act 1998 obviously protect the health of the environment in which we operate and the rights of the family and private life. It is one of the reasons that we have seen various individual countries taking a stronger line than us on the rights of children and their environment.
We have seen action taken in the EU on a precautionary basis. In particular, there have been cases of banning animal antibiotics because public health had a priority over economic considerations. In the case of BSE, the European Court of Justice said that there is an uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risk to human health, and that institutions may take protective measures without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of risks become fully apparent. The European Court of Justice has therefore used the precautionary principle in the case of BSE.
In the case of genetically modified organisms, the European Court of Justice said that member states are not obliged to release GMOs if information is received that leads them consider that the products may—I emphasise "may"—constitute a risk to human health and the environment. In the UK, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 have led to the substitution of less harmful products. In 2001, the UK High Court rejected on the precautionary basis a judicial review—a challenge against the Government—on a fly-control product. If one examines European and British case law and statute, there are reasons to support a precautionary mandatory substitution approach in REACH.
My simple intention today is to encourage the Committee, the Government and REACH to go one step further to make a safer regime for our children and our children's children. They must acknowledge the fact that despite the current dominance of the EU and the US our chemicals industry will soon become much smaller and our share of the market will inevitably go down. It is incumbent on us to take every precaution to shape the future of this massive industry for the safety of future populations and the environment of the world.
4.19 pm
Dr. Desmond Turner: Having heard the comprehensive contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), I am not going to try to cover the entire technical spectrum of this complex subject; I shall focus on just a few points.
It is clear that there is a need for legislation, and pan-European legislation at that, to regulate the chemical industry and the use of chemicals. There is no doubt about that. Neither is there any doubt that the proposals, as first put by the Commission in 2003, were over-burdensome and cumbersome and would involve massive numbers of animal experiments. There was a need to find a third way that would not create unnecessary burdens on industry but would protect the public and the environment. That was why the Committee undertook the investigation and made its recommendations.
I am happy to say that the Government largely agreed with the recommendations. I cannot remember any major point of disagreement between the Committee

353WH
and the Government on the approach to be taken in modifying the REACH proposals to get a workable compromise. We are quite happy on that score.
The Committee agreed with the Government that large-scale products, such as cement, that appear to be fairly innocuous should not be totally eliminated from the REACH proposals. The Government were quite right in resisting industry's calls for that—after all, we have before us the history of asbestos. If we had been developing REACH legislation 50 years ago, we would have said, "We use millions of tonnes of asbestos; no harm there." Now, of course, we know different. We know that it is causing thousands of deaths a year. Although cement, when standing in the form of a concrete building, cannot hurt anybody, I suspect that someone might one day find that the constant inhalation of cement dust is damaging to health and can be positively toxic.
Dr. Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that cement sometimes attracts radon into it? Together, they can be quite obnoxious and cause health problems.
Dr. Turner: That is a technical point of which I was not aware, but if true it is a very valid point. I am glad that I do not live in Cornwall and that we do not have radon problems in our houses.
I am happy that the Government are being cautious, are not going too far down the line and are leaving the door open to the possibility of things that seem safe being discovered to be not so safe under certain circumstances.
Another issue of concern that we never quite resolved was that of process impurities. I am very happy with the one substance-one registration principle, but a product is not necessarily produced by just one process, and different processes will result in different impurities, some of which may be toxic. In applying the principle, it may be important to take notice of the process that has been used to arrive at the product, as well as the product itself, just in case we overlook some highly toxic impurity that is present in small quantities and is sufficient to cause a great deal of harm.
Also, we did not quite resolve the matter of the treatment of imports. We are covering what happens in European industry, and that is fine, but what happens with finished imported products that contain chemicals that have not been through the REACH process? To the best of my knowledge, that is not covered by the REACH proposals, and I would like the Minister to reassure us that imports will be regulated, too.
I want to explore the other possibilities for which REACH could be a starting point. In our discussions of REACH, we have been talking in terms of direct toxicity to humans, to animal species or to plant species in the environment. We have not really discussed direct effects on the environment that may themselves then have deleterious effects on humans and other species. It is in this context that it is possible to build on REACH to address the climate change issues that we face.
I have in mind the example of refrigerant gases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East mentioned, we long ago replaced ammonia with CFCs, and we then found that CFCs were destroying the ozone
354WH
layer, and they in turn have largely been replaced with HFCs—hydrofluorocarbons. Unfortunately, there is now a problem with them.
I read with interest a report of some recent research showing that there was a very drastic climate change event in the eocene period—I cannot remember exactly when that was, but it was several tens of millions of years ago—which involved large-scale extinction of species and very considerable global warming. The researchers were able to analyse the atmospheric content at the time. The CO2 levels were about the same as they are now, and we think that that is too high and rising. Whatever caused this event, it was not CO2. They also found very high levels of nitrogen dioxide and methane. The explanation for the methane is simple, because wetlands produce methane. Non-CO2 gases in the atmosphere could therefore be just as important as CO2 when it comes to climate change.
Nowadays, we release a lot of nitrogen dioxide into the air, in addition to the natural production of oxides of nitrogen by thunderstorms and so forth. On top of the release of methane from wetlands, which is rapidly increasing with the melting of arctic tundras, we also release a lot of methane through the keeping of many more cows.
Dr. Gibson: And sheep.
Dr. Turner: Yes, and even a few MPs, I have to say.
We also use and permit the emission of gases, such as the refrigerant hydrofluorocarbons, that can absorb more than 3,000 times as much infrared radiation per mol as carbon dioxide. We are adding very potent greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, on top of the carbon dioxide. We spend a lot of time and effort developing policies to deal with CO2 emissions, but we have not addressed non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions.
Richard Ottaway: What does the hon. Gentleman suggest we do about it?
Dr. Turner: I was coming to that. We could use REACH as a starting point for dealing with chemicals that are indirectly toxic because of their environmental effects. This is only a suggestion, but we could extend REACH to chemicals such as the hydrofluorocarbons; we might decide not to authorise them, or to limit their authorisation, or to set a time limit on it, so that they would cease to be authorised for use in these circumstances unless they could be rigorously controlled in terms of the destruction of refrigerating equipment and so forth. It is important to remember that we are using more and more refrigeration equipment. Nearly all of us have cars with air conditioning, which contains hydrofluorocarbons, and when those cars are scrapped it is more than likely that those gases will be released and accumulate. REACH has the potential to be used as an early stage in getting a fix on non-CO2 greenhouse gases. I merely offer that as a proposition to which I would be interested to hear the Minister's response.
I welcome REACH, and the Government's intentions for the final negotiations on the form that REACH will take are sensible. Some angles must be dealt with, but I

355WH
would be interested in the possibility of using it in a wider context than that of the direct toxicity of chemicals to organisms.
4.31 pm
Sue Doughty: I congratulate the Committee on its examination of the REACH proposals, which was a very useful piece of work. I will not go through all its points, as they have been clearly set out already. This debate has provided a useful opportunity to examine the proposals.
REACH is an important proposal from Europe. It will improve the protection of human health and the environment, and provide more information on the developing risk from harmful and persistent chemicals, which is essential if that risk is to be managed. As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said, 100,000 chemicals in use have not been subjected to the testing processes required since 1981 for new chemicals. There are huge benefits to human health, but that is almost offset and dwarfed by the phasing out—one hopes—and the eventual elimination of exposure to the persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals of very high concern that are increasing throughout the environment. One extreme example is of polar bears absorbing endocrine disruptors that are so far away from where they were released into the environment.
It is important that we study and take a precautionary and protective view of the environment. The degradation of this planet over the past 100 years, as a result of ignorance and self-interest, has been enormous. At last, through a positive approach to learning more about the chemicals in use, we can start reducing man's impact on the environment. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) made some important points about the intricacies of climate change and of the interaction between naturally occurring processes and those initiated by man.
The Commission estimates industry costs for testing and registration, combined with its highest estimate for downstream users, to be €7.5 billion. That estimate is disputed, and we must know more about the size of the problem, but this project will further clarify those costs. There will be not only environmental but economic benefits, so although we cannot ignore those costs and we should minimise them as far as is sensible and practical, we must ensure that we receive benefits from the project.
REACH sends out an important message to countries outside the European Union about the high environmental standards that can and should be met. That approach is important, and we must also encourage the Government to continue their positive and leading approach. The Liberal Democrats are pleased to see a joint proposal with Hungary for the one substance-one registration approach. There is a lot of common sense in that approach. It has received support from environmental groups and from industry, and is an effective way of limiting the overall impact on businesses, and particularly small businesses.
It is especially exciting that the approach involves a partnership with central Europe, which has an industrial background that is different from ours, and where we
356WH
need the cohesion that has to come with European enlargement. As the joint approach gets under way, I look forward to receiving updates from the Minister about how it is seen by other member states and whether they are working towards similar joint approaches.
The subject of animal testing has rightly had quite an airing today. We take the approach that we will reduce the amount of animal testing by using the one substance-one registration path, but much more needs to be done to decrease the amount of animal testing that will be associated with REACH. Hon. Members have referred to the irony of the fact that, in trying to reduce the harm done to animals, we are requiring more animal testing. It is understandable how we have got ourselves into this situation. This week we learned that animal testing went up by 2.2 per cent. at a time when we want to reduce it. I am concerned about what the Government have said about decreased use of animal testing. I have a number of thoughts on that.
Alun Michael rose—
Sue Doughty: I hope that the Minister will not jump up and down at this stage. I was going to welcome the comments that he made earlier in the debate and make some further comments.
Alun Michael: The hon. Lady is making some sensible points. I just wanted to suggest that the counting of procedures does not necessarily mean an increase in testing of the sort that is detrimental to animals. That point was made when the statistics were mentioned earlier this week. We ought to be a little careful about such statistics.
Sue Doughty: I am coming to that point. It is quite right that we consider that issue. I understand and accept the point that the Minister makes, but we must understand that the increase could be substantial as a result of REACH, and we must consider that.
In May, there was an announcement about the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. We have concerns about the amount of money that will be going into that centre. It is important that we minimise the use of animals in research, while getting satisfactory outcomes from that research. Already we know that the spectrum of opinions on how much use we can make of animals ranges from zero to an awful lot.
We must get the best, most humane results in the context of the steps that we propose to take. We welcome the recommendation of the Select Committee that the Commission should provide an estimate of the amount of animal testing that will be needed. Hopefully, identifying that will provide a trigger to decrease use of animals in testing further. The sheer number of tests should be alerting us to the problems that we have. We want to ensure that REACH has public support. We do not want to lose the baby with the bathwater, as we might if we came out with unwelcome statistics. We do not want the numbers to be any higher than they should be.
Animal rights groups will give the worst-case-scenario result and numbers to the media, and we have to prevent the public from taking against REACH on

357WH
spurious grounds. It is essential that the public understand what is happening from the beginning, and that they are aware of the difference between the production of animals for testing, as one statistic, and the use of an animal during a test, as the Minister said. They need to be aware that animals are tested under very strict controls to eliminate suffering and that those controls can be monitored. The public want to know that, and, indeed, I am sure that each and every hon. Member here today wants to know that. We need to be transparent, because of the problems. We have extreme animal rights groups and we need clear information so that when the unacceptable element of those groups is making its protests, the public have clear and factual information and can lobby on behalf of animals without being seduced by that very attractive, but unpleasant, element. What that element has been doing and what it proposes to do is unacceptable. We must find all ways to counter such action, and information is one such way.
We must also ensure that we do not only say that transparency is essential. We must use methods that eliminate the use of animal testing, such as computer modelling. That is why investment in alternates by the Government and others is so important. Money can be made for that; there are patents for such activities. It is not only that we want the Government to seek them out; we want industry to do so and the universities to receive funding. We want spin-off companies to develop techniques. Given the many opportunities that exist, there should be business in the replacement of animals.
We should be considering techniques that use cell lines to express enzymes to test toxicity and other biotechnological solutions. We should always be examining tests in which animals have been specified and asking whether such a use will give the results that are expected. I draw attention to reproductive health, for example, and to the testing of feeding borates to rats. If borates are fed to rats, rats will experience damage to their reproductive organs. If borates are fed to humans, humans do not ingest them; they expel them and, thus, such damage does not occur. We must therefore eliminate tests on animals that do not even stand up to the test of logic and prove that a chemical is harmful to humans. So many such tests do not read across into the human situation. We must consider such matters. There must be rationale in the use of animals.
We want a timetable embedded into the legislation for the reduction of animal tests. The Committee called for a framework and a timetable, and I support that wish. I expressed concern about such matters on 16 June in European Standing Committee A when they were debated. When the Government say that we need to get on with something, I always respond by asking about the timetable, because it often comes far too late in the process. We now have an opportunity to take action and it is not too late for us to do so. It will mean that the sharing of tests will be reduced, because we know what is available under the timetable. Only good can come from that.
We are worried about substitution. Environmental organisations are not satisfied with the current wording of the proposals on substitution. The Committee and the Government agreed that a clear definition of adequate controls for dangerous chemicals is necessary to ensure the success of the legislation. Some campaigners are particularly worried about the issue
358WH
and have suggested that it is not possible to guarantee the full control of substances that are of immediate concern. I am not qualified to make a blanket statement to the effect that there is a danger, but the matter needs investigating. The problem merits attention. We do not want loopholes to be caused because of wobbly wording. I am pleased that not only scientists but lawyers are examining such matters to make sure that we do not become hostages to fortune because of loose wording. We do not want a situation that prevents the legislation from achieving its ends or that falls short of the maximum benefits that could be gained. I welcome anything that the Government have to say about provision and the definition of adequate controls.
We must examine—again using substitution—the controlled use of substances, especially those for which there is not an adequate alternative straightaway. We must ensure that adequate provisions are in place to revisit the matter so that we do not have open-ended agreements to possibly harmful chemicals, when the matter has not been reassessed. The REACH proposal states that authorisations
"may be subject to conditions, including review periods and/or monitoring",
but I would much rather see the word "must" than "may". We must ensure that there are incentives to stop industry and business from delaying investment or failing to invest in alternatives.
I have spent quite some time on these matters and do not want to take up time that others want to use. My final point is that we must ensure that there is investment in the greener chemicals. We are talking about substitutions, which offer huge opportunities for business and the universities.
Dr. Iddon: Is it of as much concern to the hon. Lady as it is to me that one of the chemistry departments in one of the universities of this country—at University college Swansea—is facing closure?
Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I was not aware of it. Certainly the points that were made earlier by the Chairman of the Select Committee about the threat to chemistry in this country—I also have a technology-based university in my constituency that has concerns—are deeply worrying. If we are to undertake tests, we need students and research. We need a structure in which we can do the tests but develop spin-off industries. We should take the opportunity to develop alternative products.
We really must take a radical view of the place of science in education and onwards, and we must take a much tougher line, not just in assessing the impact of closing a chemistry department but in determining what we can do to revitalise chemistry and the other sciences. We must take the opportunity to say to young people, "If you care about the environment, do not turn your back on chemistry. Do not say that chemicals are a polluting industry and that you do not want to know anything about them. Turn the industry around, change it from within." That is the message that we should be giving to students.
We must ensure that we get international agreements that recognise what is happening not only in Europe but in China and the developing countries so that we do not

359WH
have a Trojan horse and that one part of the world has standards that are different from our own. I welcome any comment from the Minister on that serious issue. We could take steps in Europe and close down our industries only to see them opening in other parts of the world that are not subject to the same conditions.
REACH is an example of the good work that can be done in Europe. This examination gives the lie to some of the criticisms that Parliament does not scrutinise European proposals efficiently. In this case, excellent and important contributions have been made to the debate.
4.48 pm
Richard Ottaway: My party welcomes the Science and Technology Committee's report. It is a well researched and effective contribution to the debates, of which there have been several. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) reminded us of effective European scrutiny, and of course we debated the matter only a few weeks ago in European Standing Committee A. REACH is one of the more serious matters being considered by the Government, and this is an excellent opportunity to hear from the Minister how things are progressing.
Some of us do not have the back-up of either a Select Committee or officials. I would like to thank those who have given me support in preparing for these debates, particularly the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology for its constructive note, the Library, various environmental groups including Greenpeace and WWF, and the European Commission, which provided me with information.
My party shares the view of the Select Committee that the current legislative framework for chemicals is inadequate. I found the report slightly curious in just one respect—the point was rather forcefully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink)—in that the Select Committee does not actually welcome the set of proposals anywhere in its report. I do not know whether that is a drafting omission or whether it is intentional, but the best that we can do is the remark:
"We share the view that it is better than the current EU legislation."
I do not believe that anyone would quarrel with that.
Dr. Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Select Committees have a reputation to maintain?
Richard Ottaway: Having spent many years on various Select Committees, I believe that that could be described as an ambiguous intervention, as it leaves me little wiser.
When one considers the remark that I cited, the phrase "damned by faint praise" comes to mind. All I can construe from the report is that the Select Committee does welcome the proposals, but most of us in this debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and, indeed, the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), have also had quite a lot of constructive criticism to make. The hon. Member
360WH
for Bolton, South-East made a very effective contribution but not one that could be said wholly to support the proposals.
Bob Spink: Of the 34 recommendations, four were neutral and eight were broadly positive towards REACH, while 22 were broadly critical of it.
Richard Ottaway: That enhances the Committee's reputation of providing constructive criticism.
Alun Michael: It seems rather odd that we should indulge in critical exegesis of whether the Committee is for or against something. REACH constitutes a set of proposals that can be improved. The fact that the Committee focused on how the proposals could be improved, rather than being for or against a set of proposals at a particular stage in their development, has enhanced the Committee's reputation. The Committee has impressed me in that regard. I do think that the characterisation by the hon. Member for Castle Point is a dumbing down of assessments of Select Committee contributions.
Dr. Gibson: The hon. Gentleman is a sourpuss.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hurling imprecations across the Chamber is not a good idea at the best of times, and that one should be withdrawn.
Richard Ottaway: I confess that I did not hear it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did.
Richard Ottaway: We are, of course, debating the Select Committee's report, not the Government's or the Commission's proposals. We shall come to the Government's position in a second.
As I was saying, the Opposition share the Committee's view that the current legislative framework is inadequate and has not produced sufficient information about the effects of chemicals on human health and the environment. Where risks are identified, it is slow to assess them and to introduce risk management measures. Those shortcomings could have put human health and the environment at risk. The current system has also hampered research and innovation, which has caused the EU chemicals industry to lag behind its counterparts in the United States and Japan in this regard. Although the proposed policy is, in principle, the right way to go, we agree with the Committee that constructive criticism is very necessary.
The new chemicals policy will create a single regulatory system for existing and new substances. We welcome that, and the Government have our support in achieving that objective. In principle, we also agree with the Government's three objectives to streamline the system, minimise animal testing and maintain or enhance the competitiveness of the sector. While we agree with the aims, however, the question is whether the Minister is achieving them. It would be fair to say that he has not been short on advice today. As the Government are still negotiating these very difficult aspects, however, we wish them well in their endeavours.

361WH
We shall examine the finished product with interest in due course, but today we will examine in some detail the progress made so far.
There has also been considerable concern that the Government have not made the protection of public health and the environment a priority or a key objective. Having heard the Minister on this subject before, however, I expect he would say that it was implied in his objectives. None the less, such concerns are at the heart of issues such as animal welfare and substitution.
The measure will clearly have a profound effect on the chemicals industry, which is not altogether unsurprising given that few, if any, environmental measures have no impact on business. However, it is significant that the uproar after the Commission's impact assessment was such that it felt that it had to have another one that included the impact on new member states—a Select Committee recommendation.
It is essential that business has a level playing field. Given that the proposals apply equally to all chemicals that are produced in the EU and—this relates to the point raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner)—to those that are imported, the playing field is as level as the industry could hope for. The overriding principle for business is that it must be given adequate time to prepare for the new regime, which must be phased in in a way that it can cope with. It should also have certainty; the measures must be transparent, and it must be made clear to industry what is expected of it.
The cost of implementing the proposals, with their extra regulatory burden, must be dealt with under the "polluter pays" principle. In the downstream use of chemicals, it is a moot point as to precisely where the cost burden should fall. There is a difference between the chemicals in the final product and those used by the manufacturer in the process, without them appearing in the final product. Either way, the cost of the new chemicals regime should be included in the price of the finished product and it should be met by those who register, not by the taxpayer. That principle should apply at national and European levels. However, given that a further impact assessment is being conducted, the true cost to business remains to be evaluated. I would be interested to hear about any provisional conclusions that the Minister may have reached about the further impact assessment.
I turn now to the issue of bureaucracy, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point dealt in some depth. The current regime is covered by 40 pieces of legislation, and enforcement is the responsibility of several different organisations, so it should not be hard to achieve a more streamlined, efficient structure. Given the widespread European trade in chemicals, this is clearly one instance in which a pan-European approach is desirable. However, we have grave reservations about whether it is absolutely necessary to establish a separate European Chemicals Agency and an ombudsman. Clearly, a substantial amount of the registration, evaluation and authorisation can be done at a national level, with co-ordination carried out by the Commission, without the added bureaucracy of yet another independent agency.
I deal now with the Government's core proposals for one substance-one registration, which they are putting
362WH
forward as their approach to the debate. Whether they will reduce costs remains to be seen, but, as they stand, they are hard to evaluate. It is not clear whether the finished product will result in effective registration, because the proposals seem incompatible with the registration of all chemicals and, more importantly, all users. As I have told the Minister before—he did not really respond then, although he might now—one substance-one registration looks suspiciously like an approved list of chemicals, rather than a register. There is merit in allowing registration by consortiums: it obviously makes sense. However, we find it hard to conceive of an effective way for late entrants to join an existing consortium, particularly if they are small or medium-sized enterprises—a point raised by several hon. Members.
On the issue of substitution, one of the goals of REACH is to ensure that chemicals that cause great concern are phased out and replaced with suitable alternatives. However, I have some sympathy with the submissions made by Greenpeace, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and WWF to the effect that the proposals will not make it an obligation to replace a chemical concern with a safer alternative. That is the substitution principle, and I agree with the Select Committee that the proposal is not excessively onerous. The Government have had plenty of time to consider that, in response to the Select Committee's comments, and I find their response to the Committee vague and ambiguous.
As for animal welfare, it should come as no surprise that the proposals are of the gravest concern to all who are against the use of animals in the testing of chemicals. The inference that the proposals will result in an increase in the use of animals in testing has, unsurprisingly, caused alarm. To judge from a reading of the figures in the report, to which my hon . Friend the Member for Castle Point referred, there will clearly be a substantial increase in animal testing—a point that was acknowledged by the Minister in European Standing Committee A. That is one of the reasons that we are watching the Government's efforts on single-substance registration proposals with interest.
We believe that, wherever possible, existing data should be used, and we support the principle of dossier evaluation, which would minimise the need to use animals for testing. However, the truth of the matter is that animal testing will increase, and we agree with the Select Committee that the scale of animal testing has not been properly communicated or justified. Having acknowledged that there will be an increase in animal testing, the Government's response—passing the buck to the Commission—is, frankly, a cop-out. We agree with the proposals in paragraph 103, which calls upon the European Chemical Agency, once it is established, to play a role in driving forward change in animal testing.
One further point, which was raised by the European Standing Committee, is the distinction between the intrinsic hazard of a chemical and the risk-based approach. On close reading of the proposals, it seems that the Government are flip-flopping between those two approaches, and greater clarity from the Minister would be appreciated.

363WH
In conclusion, the Government still have a long way to go in achieving their three objectives of streamlining the system, minimising animal testing and maintaining or enhancing competitiveness. Far from streamlining the system, bureaucracy is growing; animal testing will probably increase; and because another impact assessment is being carried out, they have no idea where they stand on the industry's competitiveness. In those circumstances, there is still a long way to go, and we look forward to hearing a progress report from the Minister.
5.4 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I was pleased to hear the official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Croydon. South (Richard Ottaway), accurately summarising the Government's three prime objectives, although he gave less credit than is deserved to the way in which we have sought to pursue those objectives, not least because he is right to say that there is some way to go. This is a process, rather than a question of suddenly coming up with a new set of proposals in response to the European Commission proposals. It is a question of working through a complex process in order to get the best possible outcome, which will have serious implications for the long-term benefit of the European Community—for its people, its health, its environment and its industry.
I am most impressed by the thoughtfulness and expertise shown by many contributors to the debate. In many ways, it shows Parliament and a Select Committee at their best, seeking not to endorse or criticise a Government position but to engage constructively with the issues with which the Government are grappling, to make serious points, to set tests for the Government and to comment on the Government's process. To that extent, the Committee's report is impressive and most welcome, and I hope that the responses that the Government and I have given are as balanced and constructive as it is.
First, we must accept that these issues are complex—there is no quick fix. Secondly, I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) in opening the debate, that we should understand what we are doing in expanding the number of chemicals in use. He referred to the dawning realisation of the impact of substances such as lead and of complex chemicals in a variety of ways, and colleagues have referred to the different impacts on air quality and human health. There has indeed been a massive expansion in the understanding of how chemicals can impact on human health, which has resulted in serious efforts to reduce pollution.
The example that was given, of flame retardants, is an excellent example of the difficulty of balancing different types of benefit and damage. There are no straight-line comparisons things are not all good on one side and all bad on the other—so we must ensure that we have a balanced method of assessing and dealing with these issues.
The impact on industry also needs to be understood as complex. Reference was made to the chemicals industry, which is clearly directly affected, but so are
364WH
many others. The retail industry has responded very positively in its contribution to our deliberations so far, and the motor manufacturing industry has also engaged with the process. I have met people from Ford and talked to various people at senior level in industry. One concern was the timing of impact. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) was right to refer to the complexity of the manufacturing process in the motor industry. One of its concerns was that the timing of controls should be such that it can do things at the start of a new production process, rather than constantly having to stop processes in order to take things forward. We need to consider these important issues in deciding the timing of changes.
One simple point, which was made in the debate, is that anyone who portrays chemicals as evil or threatening is being criminally simplistic. Many chemicals are useful and even essential to life. Chemicals of concern need to be tackled in a way that is clear, decisive, proportionate, effective and precautionary. We must have an evidence-based approach that deserves public confidence. That is why REACH is arguably one of the most important proposals to emerge from the European Commission for a long time. We protect human health and the environment from hazardous chemicals, but we must also ensure that the chemicals industry and downstream users continue to be able to serve the public and to be competitive in the global marketplace. It must be remembered that the UK opened up the process during our presidency in 1998, and we will help to carry it forward during our presidency in 2005. That is leadership in action.
The Co-operative bank makes a good point in its latest advert. At first glance, the image of three polar bears sharing a cup of tea is a trifle odd, but it makes the point that some chemicals affect even the environment and wildlife of the Arctic, and that we cannot deal with chemicals of concern only by controlling what we buy in a local chemist or supermarket. Similarly, the WWF campaign on blood tests should not frighten us—I have had my blood tested—but encourage us in developing an intelligent understanding of these difficult issues and the time scale of impact on human health and the environment.
The Government have not been constrained by the idea that those involved come from the narrow perspective of vested interests. That has been encouraging to me in the relatively short time during which I have had responsibility for these issues.
Listened to separately, the chemical industry will express fears about bureaucracy and over-regulation, campaigners on the environment or health will have fears about limp under-regulation, manufacturers and retailers will pose practical issues and express concern about public confidence, and animal welfare organisations will fear an increase in animal testing. Taken together, those cease to be narrow interests and become serious issues to be reconciled and resolved.
All the groups to which I have referred have made a positive contribution to the debate and have joined us around the table at meetings and in conferences. However, more importantly than just engaging with the Government, they have listened to one another and taken part in a genuine debate. I have also valued the cooperation between my Department's officials, with a

365WH
focus on environment and health, and the officials of my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury, with a focus on industry and productivity.
More than any other country, we have tried to say that there should be a single approach, with integration of the different issues, rather than an argument between different interests. I am impressed by the way in which many of the organisations to which I have just referred have been willing to engage with one another. Indeed, when we held a major conference in Birmingham, to which all stakeholders were invited, it was significant that industrial contributors were speaking about concerns on areas such as animal testing, and the voluntary organisations—the NGOs that were involved—were speaking about industrial concerns. That is a healthy development, and reflects the inclusive way in which we have sought to pose the debate.
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who thanked the Committee for its report. I agree with her that it is a constructive report. She made a number of sensible points, including one about the need to get to grips with the meaning of the estimates on animal testing. Many of the estimates concern the downside if we are not able to undertake more intelligent approaches to the use of testing and information.
Reference was made to the problems of testing. I pay tribute to organisations such as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which have been involved in the discussions and have made constructive contributions that were much wider than their particular organisational interests.
A number of contributors to the debate referred to the issue of substitution—the idea that the chemicals of most concern should be systematically replaced by safer alternatives. That concept is strongly supported by the UK. However, the point must be made that substitution is not a straightforward process. There are a number of examples of situations in which apparently safer substitutes were introduced in response to human health or environmental concerns only to turn out to have unintended effects of equal concern, albeit on a different front. We must therefore be careful, in encouraging substitution, that we are not too narrow in our approach.
REACH should be designed to create a framework to stimulate innovation in finding safer substitutes to complement, as far as possible, the commercial pressures that already exist within markets. We are considering the provisions relating to substitution to see whether they are likely to achieve the desired effect of acting as a sufficiently strong incentive for industry to innovate and to develop new and safer substitutes. We understand, and to some extent share, the concern of some who feel that they might not drive innovation sufficiently, and we are examining what can be done to strengthen them.
I understand that, following the stakeholder round table chaired by David Sainsbury and me, the Chemical Industries Association, the Confederation of British Industry and Greenpeace started to work together to develop a joint position on substitution. That is another example of the sort of constructive approach that has been encouraged, in the UK more than anywhere else. I pay tribute to those organisations for their responses.
366WH
A number of hon. Members have raised the issue of adequate control. We believe that the aim of the authorisation process should be to ensure both that the risks from substances of high concern are properly controlled and that those substances are eventually replaced by suitable alternative substances or technologies, with the aim of reducing the risk to human health and the environment. Given that authorisation will apply to chemicals of most concern, it will be essential that the definition of adequate control is clear and precise, and reflects commitments under existing occupational health, public health and environmental legislation. Otherwise, such authorisation decisions could be undermined. We are considering how time-limited reviews could be applied to authorisation. We welcome the Committee's comments on the issue and its support for the view that in such an approach a balance must be struck between incentives and costs.
Although some countries have seen the issues in terms of tensions between industry and the environment or health, we have seen them in terms of reconciling, balancing and interpreting genuine concerns in a most effective system. This week at the ad hoc working group established by the Council of Ministers we urged amendments for one substance-one registration. I am pleased to say that there was strong support from other member states. We are confident that we have made a workable proposal, with which we hope member states will agree, and we now seek continued development. I am confident that REACH can be developed in a workable and proportionate way to ensure that we achieve the desired level of protection without placing unnecessary burdens on industry.
I understand the concerns that have been expressed, but as I said earlier, we have been involved in a process and there have been improvements as a consequence of discussion. The Government will continue to work with member states, the Commission, the European Parliament and all our stakeholders to achieve the three key objectives. That reflects the opening comments of the hon. Member for Croydon, South. The first aim is to achieve a rapid, efficient system for collecting the necessary information on chemicals and for tackling those of most concern. That is easy to say, but we are trying to be as precise as possible in ensuring that the system will achieve that conclusion. The second aim is the minimisation of animal testing. The third is to maintain the competitiveness of the chemical industry and downstream users.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) made a number of comments about the process and the Committee's report that were, depending on one's choice of word, trenchant or strident. I tell him gently that I am not sure what the point is of being a member of a Select Committee if one's views appear not to have contributed to the process of producing that Committee's report. The thing that I understand least about his contribution is why he seems to see no advantage in British industry being on a level playing field across Europe and on a wider international stage. That would result from our involvement in a process in which, together across Europe, we engage in protecting human health and the environment.
There is a need for REACH, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to question even that. We must remember that we lack basic information on the possible risks that

367WH
continued use of the majority of the approximately 30,000 chemicals on the EU market may pose. It is therefore important to have a workable, efficient and streamlined system that focuses on the chemicals of most concern first. An enormous amount of duplication would be avoided if that were done collectively across Europe and if a system such as the one substance-one registration system were used, in order to share costs and information and to guarantee consistency across Europe.
A number of hon. Members asked about the risk basis of our judgments, which is important. REACH employs a risk-based approach. Industry is required to identify the hazards of the chemicals that it produces and to introduce appropriate risk management to protect health and the environment based on the risk assessment.
Prioritisation is also risk based. We agree that tonnage is a crude proxy for risk—"crude proxy" was the term used by the hon. Member for Croydon, South—but it is a useful starting point for the purpose of registration. It should also be remembered that risks to the environment are often closely linked to tonnage. We ought to bear it in mind that we are dealing with human health and the environment. There are points where the two run together and points where there are separate considerations.
We recognise the potential benefits of a prioritised approach to registration, but are concerned that it could introduce an additional layer of bureaucracy. We would not want a delay in registrations while substances were prioritised and the order of registration agreed. That could delay a great deal of work. We are open to considering further prioritisation tools if it can be demonstrated that they are workable and will not result in a delay in registration.
Although registration is limited to substances weighing more than 1 tonne, no threshold is proposed for substances subject to the authorisation procedure—the substances of high concern. We particularly welcome the recommendation that there be a process of spot checks and are giving further thought to how a workable system might be developed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East raised a number of serious issues. I offered to answer some of his detailed points after the sitting. I will read the Official Report and, if I have failed to deal with all the points that hon. Members have raised, I will write to those who have contributed to the debate.
My hon. Friend referred to the imports issue. It is difficult to tackle and I suggest that it is impossible to tackle it other than on a Europe-wide basis. There are two separate elements—the import of chemicals and the import of products and the chemicals contained in them. It is vital to ensure that the new regulatory regime is compatible with World Trade Organisation and other EU international trade commitments. We intend to ensure that that is the case.
We agree that there is a strong case for tackling the issue of finished products and articles imported into the EU that, potentially, contain hazardous substances. However, we need to consider further whether the Commission proposal is workable. It is an important area.
368WH
On the issue of chemicals in products, the retail trade has made the point that its customers need assurance from the industry about the safety of what is on the shelves. I am pleased to see that some elements in industry are starting to work together to ensure that the requirements for products commissioned by that industry are specified. I recently heard from people in the co-operative movement that they sought to place some criteria and found that it was difficult because, if their expectations were met, there would have to be such disruption of production processes that costs would increase considerably.
Therefore, it needs industry as a whole, as it needs Governments as a whole, to improve. That is something for which Governments have a responsibility. EU regulation is important, but it is important to have co-operation in individual industries and, as I said, co-operation with organisations such as the Chemistry Industries Association, the British retail trade and others.
We agree that there are serious considerations about impact assessment and the impact on downstream users. We agree that the costs of REACH must be fully assessed. That is why we recently consulted on our partial impact assessment and why we are carrying out further work on the impact costs on downstream users such as the coatings industry, which was referred to. We hope to have the results of that work in January.
It is clear that several of the issues to which I have tried to respond are inter-related. That underlines the complexity of the issue that we are trying to deal with. I am sure that, as a result of its meetings, that information is not new to members of the Committee. The Commission is also carrying out a further study of supply chains involving the EU-wide federation of chemical industries and the employers federations. We welcome that further work. To some degree, work done by individual countries, including the UK, which has done as much as any other country, needs to be complementary. We need to share information across Europe.
Contributions were made by several hon. Members, to which I clearly will not have time to reply in detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) introduced a Bill earlier in the year and has made clear his intention to keep a close eye on issues such as endocrine disruptors. Those are issues on which there is no simple and straightforward answer.
On the issue of the removal of substances from the market, we are concerned about the withdrawal of substances on cost grounds alone, but the European Commission's extended impact assessment suggested that a far smaller percentage of chemicals might be withdrawn from the market than earlier estimates—1 to 2 per cent. The Government's proposals for one substance-one registration will help to drive the cost of registration down by sharing the costs on a proportionate basis. We hope that that will increase registration and therefore the range of options available to industry. In addition, we are carrying out the further impact assessment to which I referred to assess the indirect impact on downstream users.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) referred to impurities. I assure him that impurities are not overlooked under the one

369WH
substance-one registration approach. If different impurities lead to different toxicity, those substances will be treated separately, even if they have the same major component.
My hon. Friend asked whether global warming potential should be added as a test in REACH. Unfortunately, there are no ways of routinely undertaking tests that could be used to screen the 30,000 chemicals to which we have referred for global warming potential. In fact, once there is an identification of chemicals in relation to global warming, they can be regulated under the Montreal protocol and therefore it might be a duplication to seek to bring those into the REACH proposals.
Dr. Turner: The only information that is needed is the molar infrared absorption.
Alun Michael: I shall certainly look at that point if I have misunderstood the narrowness of what my hon. Friend was saying and I will respond to him again.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South said that we must avoid creating an agency that increases in size. We do not want to see an agency that is big and bureaucratic. We want an agency that is strong enough to hold the ring and to enforce consistency. Without that, there would not be the level playing field that is in
370WH
the best interests of our industry. It would also ensure that there was effectiveness in the protection of human health and the environment.
Several hon. Members referred to the objective of reducing animal testing. There are some difficulties here because some of the assessments are crude in terms of the overall numbers to which they refer. We would welcome a view on the estimate of numbers of animals likely to be used under REACH. We recognise that that is not a straightforward task. The process of developing and validating alternatives to animal tests is inherently slow, partly because it needs to be robust enough to ensure the delivery of meaningful and reproducible data.
As a member of the interdepartmental group on the three Rs—replacement, refinement and reduction—DEFRA has a role in influencing activities on issues relating to the minimisation of the use of animals in experiments. We supported the setting up of the center for the three Rs. We will be developing policy to influence that area and considering how research funding might best be channelled to meet environmental objectives. DEFRA will be looking into prioritising requirements for research in both the short and long-term goals for the three Rs—
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.