1 Emissions of volatile
organic compounds from solvents used in paints
| (24189)
5268/03
COM(02) 750
| Draft Directive on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in decorative paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC.
|
| Legal base | Article 95EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Second SEM of 14 October 2003 and Minister's letter of 20 October 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xxxiii (2002-03), paragraph 5 (15 October 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 27 October 2003
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee A
|
Background
1.1 Under certain climatic conditions, the emission of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere can lead to the formation
of ground level ozone, which can in turn have adverse effects
on human health and the environment. As a result, the Community
has taken a number of steps to address this problem, including
Directive 1999/13/EC[1]
(which sets emission limit values and introduces plans to reduce
such emissions from industrial sectors which are substantial users
of organic solvents). However, although man-made emissions of
VOCs within the Community are projected to have fallen in 2010
by 50% as compared with 1990, the Commission says that further
measures are needed to reach the target to which Member States
have committed themselves. It therefore proposed in December 2002
that limit values should be set for the content of VOCs in decorative
paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products, which it
has since identified, not only as significant sources of VOC
emissions, but also as among those sectors where it would be technically
and economically feasible to reduce the VOC content further within
a realistic timeframe.
1.2 As we noted in our Report of 15 October 2003,
we had been told in an Explanatory Memorandum of 31 January 2003
that the proposal could have implications for paint and solvent
manufacturers, but that, although that had been accompanied by
a summary of costs and benefits at the European level, the Government
had not yet completed a Regulatory and Environmental Impact Assessment
for the UK. We were, however, assured that a preliminary Assessment
would be produced by April 2003, and, in view of its importance,
we decided to defer substantive consideration of the proposal
until it was available.
1.3 In the event, we received only recently an initial
Assessment under cover of a supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
of 6 October 2003 from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
(Farming, Foods and Sustainable Energy) at the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty), coupled with
a request for early scrutiny clearance in view of the Presidency's
wish to seek political agreement at the Environment Council on
27 October 2003. Moreover, the Assessment suggested that, as
a result of deferred deaths, reductions in respiratory diseases
and avoidance of environmental damage, the benefits by 2010 would
be some £3.4 million a year, whereas the annualised costs
in 2010 are estimated at £83 million — a net disbenefit
of nearly £80 million a year, which we contrasted with the
Commission's estimate that there would be net benefit to
the UK of between £30 and £34 million.
1.4 In noting the Minister's request, we commented
that this was not the first occasion on which we had held a document
under scrutiny on the understanding that his Department would
shortly be providing a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), only
to find ourselves faced with an urgent request some months later
to clear a document on the basis of information which had only
just been provided. We also expressed concern, not only about
the clear difference between the Commission's estimate of the
net cost and that undertaken by the UK, but also because the latter
suggested that the annual cost of the proposal in 2010 would be
nearly 25 times the monetised benefit. Consequently, we said
that, before we could consider the proposal further, we needed
confirmation that the UK intended to agree to a proposal on which
there appeared to be such a clear disbenefit, and, if so, a convincing
explanation why.
Minister's letter of 20 October 2003
1.5 We have since received from the Minister a second
supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 14 October, which simply
sets out the amendment proposed by the European Parliament at
its second reading on 25 September, and does not appear to alter
matters materially. However, he has sought in a letter of 20
October to address our earlier concerns.
1.6 On the delay in forwarding an initial RIA, the
Minister says that negotiations on the proposal have taken place
over an unexpectedly short timetable, as a result of which the
Government faces the prospect of agreement to the proposal shortly
after our having received the RIA. He stresses that it was certainly
not his intention to foreclose our consideration of the proposal
and that, although the Assessment has been prepared as quickly
as possible, he takes very seriously the concern that we have
expressed about the slippage in his department's timetables. The
Minister also points out that it has proved difficult to cost
the proposal, with work being delayed as significant changes have
been made to the text during negotiations. He adds that it seemed
more helpful to let us have an Assessment which covered the most
likely forms of the final text, rather than one which considered
only the original Commission proposal, even if this entailed a
slight delay.
1.7 As regards the content of the Assessment, the
Minister says that a very conservative view has been taken of
the costs and benefits, and that a monetary value has not been
put on some of the health benefits which might be expected, or
on all of the other costs and benefits. Another significant unknown
is the extent to which industry may have adopted lower limits
for solvents in paints even without the proposal. He adds that
the RIA is likely to under-estimate the benefits and put an upper
limit on the costs, but that support for the proposal is justified
by the quantified benefits and by unquantified factors, such as
the benefits of a single market in paint across the European Community,
and the deregulatory measures to amend the Solvent Emissions Directive
in respect of small vehicle refinishing plants. He also suggests
that the proposal needs to be considered in the context of the
high concentrations of ground-level ozone experienced both in
the United Kingdom and other Member States this summer.
1.8 The Minister concludes by confirming that political
agreement is expected at the Council on 27 October, but indicates
that United Kingdom support for the proposal at Council will depend
on the final text, which is not yet available, since further negotiations
are due to take place on 22 October. However, he says that he
expects a satisfactory text will emerge, which will make a worthwhile
contribution to reducing the overall UK and European emissions
of VOCs and subsequent levels of ozone formation, with the likely
benefits justifying the costs. Consequently, he indicates that,
although time is tight, it would be a considerable assistance
if we felt able to complete parliamentary scrutiny before 27 October.
Conclusion
1.9 Whilst we are grateful to the Minister for
this further information, it gives rise to two points of concern.
First, although we appreciate that the pace of Community business
is not always easy to predict, this has been the case for many
years, and we have made it clear that we expect Departments to
gear their scrutiny arrangements accordingly, so as to ensure
that adequate time is available for us to consider documents,
and, where necessary, for a debate to be held on them. As the
Minister acknowledges, there have been significant delays in this
instance, partly, it would seem, as a consequence of his Department's
wish to provide the most up-to-date Assessment possible. However,
whilst we understand this last point, we would, as a general rule,
prefer to receive even a rough and ready Assessment at an early
date, since this would enable us at least to form an initial view
of the proposal in good time.
1.10 We have also considered the Minister's comments
on the apparent discrepancy between the likely costs and benefits
of the proposal, and we have noted his explanation. However,
we are not on the evidence available to us so far wholly convinced
that the benefits do justify the costs. Consequently, we believe
that these issues should be explored further in European Standing
Committee A before there can be any question of the UK giving
its political agreement to what is proposed.
1 OJ No. L.85, 29.3.99, p.1. Back
|
