House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Proceedings Report

WEDNESDAY 12 JUNE 2002

Members present:

Mr David Curry, in the Chair

Mr Colin Breed David Taylor

Mr Austin Mitchell Mr Michael Jack

David Burnside Mr Mark Todd

Diana Organ Mr Eric Martlew

Mr David Drew

The Committee deliberated.

Resolved, That the Illegal Meat Imports Sub-committee do visit Heathrow airport in connection with its inquiry.—(The Chairman.)

Ordered, That Mr David Borrow be discharged from the Illegal Meat Imports Sub-committee.—(The Chairman.)

Report from the Genetically Modified Organisms Sub-committee [Genetically Modified Organisms], proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 40 read and agreed to.

Summary read and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Fifth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.

A Memorandum was ordered to be reported to the House.

Report from the Disposal of Refrigerators Sub-committee [Disposal of Refrigerators], proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 30 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 31 read, as follows:

"In any event, it eventually became clear that the continuing debate about whether foam recovery was 'practicable' under the terms of Article 16(3) was likely to prove redundant: in fact it increasingly seemed that insulating foam fell under Article 16(2), which makes no reference to the practicality of its recovery. Mr Meacher conceded that even in early 2000 officials had been given legal advice that "recovery might come at 16(2)".[1] He said that officials "informed the industry that it was likely that the outcome would be that recovery facilities would be required.....their response to us was to continue to press us strongly for certainty".[2] Certainty came in June 2001, when it was belatedly made clear that Article 16(2) applies to the insulating foam. All of the debate about the phrase 'if practicable' was proved to be a waste of time. What is more, there was no mechanism by which the implementation of the Regulation could be delayed."

Amendment proposed, in line 9, to leave out from the word "All" to the word "more" in line 10.—(Mr Mitchell.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 2 Noes, 6

Mr Austin Mitchell Mr Colin Breed

Mr David Taylor David Burnside

Mr Michael Jack

Mr Eric Martlew

Diana Organ

Mr Mark Todd

Paragraph 31 agreed to.

Paragraphs 32 to 43 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 44 read, as follows:

"Whilst the European Commission must accept some blame for lack of clarity, the overwhelming responsibility for mishandling the implementation of Regulation 2037/2000 lies with the Government. Government officials initially made a judgement that insulating foam within fridges fell under Article 16(3) not Article 16(2); they then argued about the semantics of the phrase 'if practicable' when in fact the practicality of dealing with the foam was abundantly demonstrated by practice in other European countries; they were unaware of the implications of Article 11 for exports of fridges from the UK, and therefore for 'take-back' schemes; despite requesting clarification on so many occasions they failed to resolve the issue; they apparently ignored or reacted very slowly to a host of warnings from interested parties; and despite those warnings and legal advice suggesting that the Regulation would be taken to apply to foam insulation they failed to put in place contingency plans to cope with the problem. This debacle will cost the UK around £40 million, a cost which would not otherwise have been incurred."

Amendment proposed, in line 1 to leave out from the word "Whilst" to the word "incurred" in line 13, and insert the words:

"Blame must be apportioned all round. The Commission was to blame for the lack of clarity in the regulation and for the long failure to clarify it to the satisfaction of the British government until June 2001. The system for European regulation is at fault because once this regulation was in motion it could be neither suspended nor delayed and came into full effect on 1 January 2002 despite the fact that belated clarification made it impossible to dispose of all fridges in Britain until late in 2002 and the fact that several other governments were not even able, for whatever reason, to implement it at all. British officials were unaware of the implications of Article 11 for exports of fridges from the UK. They either ignored or reacted too slowly to warnings from interested parties, failed to put contingency plans in place and did not bring the developing problems to the attention of the Minister until well into 2001, by which stage it was too late to put the appropriate investment and machinery in place to dispose of both coolant and foam when the regulation came into force. This debacle will cost the UK around £40 million, a cost which would not otherwise have been incurred. The whole episode provides a depressing example of how not to regulate on a European basis.".—(Mr Mitchell.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3 Noes, 6

Mr David Drew Mr Colin Breed

Mr Austin Mitchell David Burnside

Mr David Taylor Mr Michael Jack

Mr Eric Martlew

Diana Organ

Mr Mark Todd

Paragraph 44 agreed to.

Paragraphs 45 to 48 read and agreed to.

Summary read and agreed to.