Proposition 52K2093

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 21 décembre 1998 relative aux normes de produits ayant pour but la promotion de modes de production et de consommation durables et la protection de l'environnement et de la santé.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V the Van Rompuy government

Submission date

July 2, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Regulation chemical product consumer information sustainable development dangerous substance environmental protection environmental standard national implementing measure production standard penalty public health

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 9, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

In its introductory presentation, the Minister of Climate and Energy stated that, until the entry into force of the REACH Regulation, 100,000 chemicals were marketed without examination of their toxicological or ecotoxicological characteristics. Since 1981, only so-called new substances were subject to such examination; they represented only 2 to 3% of the total.

One of the key features of REACH was to entrust industry with greater responsibilities in the safety of chemical substances, substances as such in preparations and consumer goods, including by reversing the burden of proof for authorisation, as well as by sharing responsibilities across the different stages of the supply chain.

REACH entered into force on 1 June 2007. A Central Assessment Agency (ECHA) is established in Helsinki and manages registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction processes.

REACH is a regulation and should not be transposed. However, Belgium is obliged to take all necessary measures to ensure the full implementation and effectiveness of REACH and to properly integrate it. This implies, in particular, that the federal level adopts provisions sanctioning violations of REACH articles; the choice has been to include them in the Product Standards Act. Other devices complement these articles. These include the creation of the REACH 'help desk' within the SPF Economy as well as the cooperation agreement between the Federal State and the Regions, which should be adopted quickly.

The REACH Help Desk is the sole responsibility of the Minister of Economy. Its mission is to inform all Belgian companies in order to make the European regulation effective.

Environmental controls are a shared competence. The federal authority is responsible for the placing on the market of products, while the Regions control the use and treatment of waste. In this context, the cooperation agreement will specify the duties of each entity.

The bill under consideration is based on four key points:

- make punishable Articles of REACH that may be infringed;

harmonise the procedure for administrative sanctions;

- lower the ceiling applicable to administrative fines so that they are effective;

The use of warnings.

The adoption of a system of sanctions for violations of REACH provisions is done by dividing the provisions of REACH into minor infringements and serious infringements. This distinction is based on the effects that the violation of a particular item could have on humans and the environment. If such effects are potentially present, the infringement is considered to be serious. If the infringement relates to an obligation with an administrative scope, it is considered to be minor.

Following the objections raised by the State Council, a new system was introduced only for minor offences, which has the advantage of discharging the prosecutors for less serious offences. The administration issues fines on the basis of a report of finding for minor offences. For serious offences, the minutes are sent to the prosecutor. The administration can no longer intervene if the prosecutor does not provide any follow-up.

Criminal prosecution for minor offences will remain possible in case of non-payment. So-called minor offences are not always innocent and sometimes deserve criminal prosecution. The use of administrative fines is optional. Administrative fines lead to a much faster punishment of the facts, which has a deterrent effect.

It is proposed to lower the ceiling of administrative fines. The maximum amount of the administrative fine for serious infringements would, without further adaptation of the law, amount to 11 million euros. It is proposed to limit the maximum amount to the twentieth of the maximum amount of this fine. If a higher penalty is appropriate, the case should be handled via the prosecutor’s office. The penalty system has not changed.

A warning procedure may prove useful to enforce compliance with regulations. Nevertheless, the possibility of warning should be limited by law in a number of cases where this procedure is inappropriate, in particular when the infringement has already been committed, when a deadline has been imposed by REACH or in a decision of ECHA or the Commission. Europe has set these deadlines and it is not up to the Member States to negotiate them.

These provisions will enable the public authority to enforce the European commitment, to provide a framework for companies using chemicals, while ensuring better knowledge and better replacement of those with undesirable effects on health and the environment.

During the discussion, Mr. Otlet noted that the Council of Ministers had not conducted a second reading of the bill. In the first reading, it was asked to collect a series of opinions from the sectoral federations. Were these opinions requested? Can the members of the committee be aware of this?

Ms. Schyns, Muylle and Gerkens have spoken a lot about certain REACH regulations relating to a shared competence between federal and regional authorities and the different consultations between the different levels of power.

Ms Schyns joined the State Council which asked which Belgian authority would be competent to transfer funds to the Central Assessment Agency. She asked if the minister could determine it.

Ms. Muylle agreed that minor and serious offences would be treated differently. Within the framework of the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain, however, it is observed that there is often no monitoring of administrative fines. Does this risk not exist in this case too?

Ms. De Bont agreed that the sanctions imposed for infringements of the REACH Regulation be incorporated into the Product Standards Act. Minor infringements are often the result of heavy administrative obligations imposed by REACH and the division of competence between federal and regional authorities. Could these administrative obligations still be simplified?

Ms. Gerkens asked the Minister why, in the draft article 5, the State Council’s observation was not taken into account, namely that a competence actually belonging to the legislative power had been granted to the King.

Article 6 provides that when an infringement is the subject of a record, it must be sent within 30 days. What happens if it is not sent within this deadline? Is the minutes invalid in this case? Can it therefore no longer be used as proof of the infringement? What about the same repeated offence?

With regard to Article 8, the State Council considered it preferable to specify in the law which offences were sanctioned. This amendment was not made to the project under consideration. Can the Minister explain why he did not take into account the remarks of the State Council?

The Minister’s responses were as follows. He clarified that there was no second reading in the Council of Ministers because there was a full agreement, but that several opinions were collected, including opinions from the Superior Council of Independents and SMEs and the Environment expert network of the College of Prosecutors General and that they were taken into account in the project. There have already been talks with the regions. Some topics will need to be the subject of a cooperation agreement as soon as new governments are formed.

Product standards fall within the federal jurisdiction and the control of related sanctions therefore also falls within the federal jurisdiction. The use of products and the control of related sanctions are, on the other hand, regional competences. Since there is control and sanctions at both levels, there is no need to write a cooperation agreement in this regard.

A PV transmitted to the Prosecutor’s Office may remain without succession; this results from the separation of powers. The mechanisms for the transmission of PVs to the parquet have been strengthened to increase the guarantee that there will be effective follow-up.

The bill under consideration concerns only control measures and sanctions in case of breach of the regulation. It does not impose any additional administrative obligation. The observations made by the State Council in Article 5 of the draft have been taken into account, with Article 5, § 2 of the preliminary draft being deleted. Article 6.1 replaces Article 15 of the Product Standards Act of 1991 and governs the entire proof-force procedure of PVs. These PVs are faithful until proof of the contrary. Article 8 cites article numbers as this is more clear from a legal point of view.

For the votes, Articles 1 to 14 were successively adopted unanimously. The draft law, as amended, was adopted unanimously.

I will conclude by pointing out that my group will vote on this bill because it improves what exists, especially in relation to the dangerousness of the products concerned. I would also like to thank the services that, once again, cut down considerable work in 24 hours.

Mr. Speaker, this bill allows, in relation to the objectives and scope of the REACH Regulation, to develop sanctions for non-compliance with the Regulation.

I wanted to draw the attention of the House members to the importance of the implementations, which really enable the implementation of REACH, and the scope of that regulation. In fact, it is still about protecting workers and consumers, who could be exposed to toxic chemicals. It is therefore important to evaluate them before they are placed on the market, in order to protect consumers and workers and to ban them in the event of significant toxicity.

In the present case, if it is only a step in the process, it holds all sounds meaning and remains no less important.