11.1 The aim of this proposal is to harmonise
measures adopted by different Member States to deal with the amount
and the toxicity of waste from vehicles which have reached the
end of their life (ELVs).
11.2 On 23 June 1999, we cleared the text
on which a Common Position was expected to be agreed and on 20
October 1999 we considered a letter from the Minister for Small
Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt) in which she told
us that a compromise had been reached on a question which remained
of concern to one Member State. That related to the possibility
that producers would be asked to meet the costs of treatment for
vehicles that were already registered throughout Europe. The Common
Position was subsequently adopted[25].
11.3 The Minister brings us up to date in
her letter of 29 February, reporting that the European Parliament
passed 33 amendments to the Common Position text. It seems clear,
she says, that there is strong opposition to many of the amendments
from Member States and that the formal conciliation process is
likely to begin in mid-March. She comments:
"It seems to me that
the two most important issues for the UK are the producer responsibility
provisions in this Directive, and the proposed restrictions on
the use of heavy metals in new vehicles.
"Producer Responsibility. The Common
Position text states that vehicle producers must meet 'all or
a significant part' of the costs of treatment for existing vehicles
from 2006 onwards. It is important to be clear that scrapped vehicles
would have to be treated in accordance with the Directive from
around 2002 onwards (Member States will be given eighteen months
to implement the Directive). Under this text we may decide (within
limits) what the size of the producers' contribution should be,
and how best to fund any remaining costs.
"This means that — between 2002 and 2006
— Member States would either have to find alternative ways
to meet all of the treatment costs or pass national legislation
requiring the producers to pay some or all of these costs.
"However, one amendment passed by the European
Parliament would mean that Member States only had to hold producers
responsible for meeting treatment costs for new vehicles, sold
eighteen months after the Directive came into force (2002). These
vehicles would not begin to be scrapped in significant numbers
until 2010-2015 — and this could mean that Member States
would have to find alternative means of funding the costs, or
pass national legislation covering the period until 2015. We will
study this amendment carefully, but it seems to me that our objective
should be to secure the greatest flexibility in practice to decide
how best to recover these costs.
"Restrictions on the use of heavy metals.
The Common Position text strikes a balance between environmental
improvements and the needs of industry, by placing a ban on the
use of heavy metals (lead, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and mercury)
in vehicles sold from around 2002 onwards, except for certain
exceptions listed in an Annex to the Directive, where the producers
have argued that heavy metals are essential and no viable alternatives
are available.
"Parliament has passed two amendments on this
issue. They have suggested that these restrictions should only
apply to new vehicle models introduced after 2005, to give producers
greater time to meet the restrictions. They have also suggested
that a number of additional items should be included in the Annex
of exceptions, where the producers have come forward with further
arguments for their inclusion. We are considering both of these
amendments.
"A number of less critical issues will also
be covered at conciliation:-
"— Collection points. We may
want to allow end of life vehicles to be delivered first to car
dealerships or collection points for storage, before they are
passed on to shredders. Two [European] Parliamentary amendments
would require collection points to hold waste management licences
even if they were not dismantling or shredding the vehicle. This
would deliver no environmental benefit and we intend to oppose
these amendments;
"— Historic vehicles. Some
classic car owners have been concerned that some Member States
(not the UK) might use this Directive to scrap historic vehicles.
Three [European] Parliamentary amendments are designed to exempt
these vehicles from the scope of the Directive. We can accept
the spirit of these amendments, although some redrafting may be
needed;
"— Mercury. Three [European]
Parliamentary amendments would require the separate removal of
mercury from vehicles before they are shredded. We are considering
these amendments, and in particular checking whether the environmental
benefits would outweigh the costs;
"— Used Parts. One [European]
Parliamentary amendment would extend the Directive so that used
parts removed from vehicles when they are repaired would also
have to be collected and properly treated. We are considering
these amendments, and in particular whether the environmental
benefits outweigh the costs.
"We will of course be working with other Member
States to ensure that the Council can negotiate a package which
is acceptable overall for the UK."
