European Standing Committee C
Tuesday 9 March
[Mrs. Ray Michie in the Chair]
Treatment of End of Life Vehicles
10.30 am
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Brian Wilson): I am grateful to
the Select Committee on European Legislation for seeking the
debate. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Minister for
Competition and Consumer Affairs, who would usually deal with the
matter that we are considering, is currently abroad. I assure
members of the Committee that I will do my best to answer their
questions, and I undertake to fill any gaps that are left at the
end of our proceedings by writing to hon. Members. We are
considering an important matter, and I hope that we shall be able
to scrutinise it adequately this morning.
I welcome the opportunity to describe the Government's
approach to the directive, and to answer any questions that
members of the Committee may ask. We shall also take account of
the Committee's views when we attend the Environment Council on
Thursday. I hope that the Committee will agree to the motion,
which will give clearance to the Government's approach.
The Government fully support the aim of the directive, which
is to improve the environment, by increasing the proportion of
scrap in end-of-life vehicles that is reused or recycled, by
reducing the amount of heavy metals in new vehicles, by improving
the standard of treatment of end-of-life vehicles, and by
requiring producers to manufacture more recyclable vehicles in
future. However, the Government do not entirely support the text
that the Commission has prepared. We have several detailed
anxieties about parts of the directive. Perhaps we can discuss
some of them this morning.
Our anxieties fall into two broad categories. First, we
support a directive that will work not only in theory but in
practice. We all want to improve the environment, but the
directive should set achievable targets and acknowledge the
anxieties of the motor and metal industries.
Secondly, we believe that the Commission's draft directive
is over-prescriptive in parts. Member states should be given some
flexibility to decide the best way to fulfil the objectives that
the directive sets out.
I cannot give the Committee firm promises about the
directive. A common position on it will be agreed later this
week. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has tabled an
amendment about the fact that Ministers from the United Kingdom
and other member states need to discuss the directive at the
Council meeting on Thursday. As the right hon. Gentleman knows
from his ministerial experience, it is not possible to be sure
of the outcome. The Government will work to ensure that the
common position reflects our views. Today's debate will
contribute to that process. Last week my hon. Friend the Minister
for Competition and Consumer Affairs distributed a draft text
acceptable to the Government, and I am optimistic—I can put
it no more strongly—that member states will be able to
agree on a common position along those lines.
The Chairman: We now have until 11.30 am at the latest for
questions to the Minister. They should be brief, and hon. Members
should ask one at a time. There is likely to be ample opportunity
for all hon. Members to ask several questions.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): Which Minister will
represent the United Kingdom on Thursday? What text will be put
before the European Council? The Minister referred to appendix
J, dated 3 March, but at the moment that is effectively a wish
list of Government requests. To what extent are those reflected
in the Commission's draft, which will be the working document on
the basis of which a common position will be reached?
Mr. Wilson: The Minister for the Environment will represent
the Government. We cannot completely anticipate the text of the
document on the common position. However, we are confident that
that document, which will go to the European Council, will
substantially reflect the British position. No definitive
document has yet been produced, but that is a reflection of the
process by which such measures are considered. I can assure the
hon. Gentleman that, as far as we can judge, the document will
closely reflect the British position given in the documents that
Committee members have before them.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet): I fully support the
Minister in this matter, and I understand the wish to make cars
more recyclable. However, we must avoid making European vehicles
less competitive and less durable than vehicles produced
elsewhere in the world. Has the Minister given any thought to
that consideration?
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is right. Those are significant
concerns for the Government, and they have been discussed.
Clearly, we must avoid obligations that are excessively onerous.
We are anxious to achieve environmental solutions, but we must
also bear in mind the representations of car makers and the metal
industries—especially the steel industry—and ensure
that they are not unduly burdened by upheaval. We believe that
we will achieve an acceptable common position that will reflect
the concerns raised by my hon. Friend. That will be done, not
least through the representations by the United Kingdom
Government.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): May I ask about article 3.1 of the
draft directive, which covers
``vehicles and end of life vehicles, including their
components and materials.''
How are non-original components fitted to a vehicle to be
handled so as to fulfil the various responsibilities allocated
under the proposal? The arrangements must take into account the
vehicle-producer responsibilities covered by the directive.
Mr. Wilson: I shall come back to that matter later.
The Government have sought to exclude from the directive a
number of considerations that appear in article 3. For example,
we would have no objection to the removal of motor cycles from
the scope of the directive on two and three-wheeled vehicles. We
would have no objection to three-wheeled vehicles being subject
only to limited provisions. We believe, too, that the special
purpose vehicles referred to in article 3 should be excluded from
the directive or covered by limited provisions only.
Article 3 also refers to small-volume manufacturers. The
Government believe that very small-volume manufacturers should
be exempted from certain provisions in the directive. That would
affect companies such as Morgan and Aston Martin.
I am aware that I have not answered the hon. Gentleman's
question about additional vehicle parts, but I will address it
later.
Mr. Chope: May I take the Minister back to the question of
the documentation? When will the Secretary of State for the
Environment, Transport and the Regions see the document on which
there will be a discussion on Thursday morning? Will the Minister
ensure that members of the Committee see it as soon as it is
produced? In that way, people—not only those in Committee
but those outside who have an interest in the proposals—who
wish to make further representations in the light of the
document's contents will be able to make them before Thursday
morning, when the Secretary of State goes in to bat.
Will the Minister tell us to what extent the wish list in
appendix J is a list of negotiating positions? To what extent are
the Government prepared to agree to a directive that does not
include the amendments set out in that appendix?
Mr. Wilson: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question as
to when the Secretary of State will see the document that will
eventually form the basis of the common text. It is evolving
through discussion, and there is therefore no definitive document
for him to see at present. I cannot forecast the precise moment
when it will appear, but by the time the meeting takes place
there will certainly be a draft document that reflects not only
the Commission's proposals but the European Parliament's
amendments. The Secretary of State has those proposals and
amendments, and I am confident that the documents that emerge
will provide an accurate and satisfactory reflection of the
United Kingdom Government's position.
I return to the question of non-original components. The
matter will have to be dealt with when the directive is
implemented. It is probable that replacement parts would be
covered by the provisions if they were similar to the original
parts, although a major component of a car, such as a replacement
engine, would probably not be covered.
In the context of competitiveness, it is important to
emphasise the fact that the directive will affect all cars sold
in the European Union, not just those produced here. It will,
therefore, also cover American and Japanese vehicles, for
example.
Mr. Jack: In the Minister's response to my first question,
he mentioned two car companies—Morgan and Aston Martin.
Morgan bodies are made of metal and their chassis are made of
wood; they are therefore wholly compliant with the directive.
Aston Martin bodies are made of metal and are also compliant.
Will the Minister tell us what work the Department of Trade and
Industry has carried out to measure the impact of the proposal
on Britain's largest indigenous car company, TVR?
Mr. Wilson: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that close
consultation has taken place with all sectors of the industry,
and I think that he will be satisfied with the position taken by
the United Kingdom Government. As I have said, I expect the
common text to reflect the views of the industry. If the right
hon. Gentleman wishes me to write to him on specific discussions
that have taken place with any particular company, I will be
pleased to do so.
I return to the question of non-original components. The
matter will have to be dealt with when the directive is
implemented. It is probable that replacement parts would be
covered by the provisions if they were similar to the original
parts, although a major component of a car, such as a replacement
engine, would probably not be covered.
In the context of competitiveness it is important to
emphasise the fact that the directive will affect all cars sold
in the European Union, not just those produced here. It will,
therefore, also cover American and Japanese vehicles, for
example.
| 
