The
Chairman: We now have until half-past 5 for questions to
the Minister. I remind hon. Members that those questions should be
brief. It is open to right hon. and hon. Members, subject to the
discretion of the Chair, to ask related supplementary questions
together. Mr.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): I echo previous comments
welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Bercow. It is a pleasure to
serve under you.
I have a few
questions for the Minister on the regulation. The first involves a
point eloquently made by the European Scrutiny Committee, which
said: “It
is therefore all the more unsatisfactory that the Commission should be
seeking the power to introduce such measures before producing a proper
Impact Assessment, and we do not believe that the approach suggested by
the Government...is adequate.”
Why, therefore, did the
Government not call for the Commission to produce a proper impact
assessment before allowing it to implement the
measure?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: As I said in my opening comments, although
I understand the concerns that have been expressed, I have articulated
our concern that a full cost-benefit analysis should be done, and we
are confident that that will take place after the regulations are laid
and before any proposal is introduced. There will be a full
cost-benefit analysis; that is what we have been pushing the Commission
to do. We are confident that it will agree to that before it impacts on
our suppliers and manufacturers. Moreover, as I mentioned, we are
already
fully engaged and scoping the issue with our stakeholders to ensure that
their input is there from day one, before any proposals are even
brought
forward. Martin
Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): It is pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow. It makes it well worth
missing the Cheltenham
festival. The
Minister mentioned the bank of ozone-depleting substances that are tied
up in existing materials, of which a very high proportion are
insulation and building foams. Given that the existing EU regulation
has been very successful, as it has largely stopped production of new
ODS, and has achieved high-percentage reductions in many other fields,
why does he think that so little progress has been made in safely
removing and disposing of these building
foams?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: It is right that we should work with the
industry. We have undoubtedly made progress, but there is still more to
be done. The progress that we have made so far has been built by
working with both stakeholders and industry, thereby ensuring that we
have not jeopardised their future. We want to ensure that as we move to
the next stage, as laid out in the recast regulation, that we take the
same approach to make progress. In my opening comments, I signalled
that some of the ambitions in the recast regulation and the new
international agreements bring forward not only the date for ruling out
the use of such substances but possibly the date for moving to the
stage of stripping it out of buildings as they are demolished and so
on. What we would not want to do is put undue burdens on business,
especially in the current economic
climate.
Mr.
Jack: In the light of the Minister’s confident
statement that he expects a full cost-benefit analysis to be produced,
how does he reconcile that with the statement on page 20 of the
Commission staff working document that says
that “a
full cost-benefit analysis would not be proportional to the problem as
the benefits (as well as the costs) are expected to be small since we
are now at the tail end of the
problem.” The
document goes on to say that
“the exercise
would not be
meaningful”.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I am happy to expand on that. Although a
Minister can never be too confident, the confidence that I showed in my
comments stemmed from the fact that we have continued our discussions
with the Commission about this regulation and made clear the imperative
of doing a full cost-benefit analysis before any proposals are
introduced. Regardless of what is in the document, we are confident
that that undertaking will be complied with. I look forward to
returning to the Committee to say that what I have just said has been
delivered.
Mr.
Jack: Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, we do
not operate in this particular regulation in absentia of other views.
The Minister made it clear that qualified majority voting would
determine the issue. Therefore, would he say what other member states
have said about the situation, and who are our allies or
antagonists?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a
roll call of who is on that list. What I can tell him is that we have
allies in that position. Other member states recognise that such a
matter is not only a UK issue. I have referred to the need to ensure
that any proposal that is introduced has a proper cost-benefit
analysis. If and when any proposal is introduced, we will ensure that
that analysis is done. Moreover, based on the engagement that we have
already had with European nations, we will have allies who will
support us.
Mr.
Benyon: In Hansard on 25 June 2008, the then
Minister stated
that “around
100,000 tonnes of ozone-depleting substances might be in some one
million tonnes of buildings foam in existing buildings in the
UK.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2008; Vol. 478, c.
304W.] The
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that
“357 tonnes of
ODS was recovered from recycling 2 million refrigerators in 2006.
So”— following
the maths
through— “100,000
tonnes of ODS in building foams could be seen as equivalent to over 500
million
refrigerators.” Building-foam
insulation containing ozone-depleting blowing agents is clearly
hazardous waste and, by law, must be sent to a hazardous waste landfill
site at the end of its building life. Therefore, any cost impact
assessment must be based on the comparative cost of disposing of
products via a hazardous waste landfill site and the cost of recovery
via a refrigerated reprocessing plant. Have the Government made that
comparative analysis, as it could have a significant bearing on any
cost-evaluation implementation of the
regulation.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The answer is not yet, because we do not
have the proposal with which to move forward on recovery. However, as I
said in my opening comments, we are fully engaged with stakeholders,
including those who may be involved in future, stripping the material
out and disposing of it. Although there are undoubtedly costs, we will
look for benefits that might accrue, in monetary terms, and because of
climate impacts—the potential of the measure to assist our
climate and carbon objectives. We are not at the stage where we need to
do that, but we are geared up to do it at the appropriate
moment.
Martin
Horwood: The Minister talked about benefits, including the
most important benefit of the whole protocol—the millions of
lives that it may already have saved and will probably continue to
save. What assessment have the Government made of how many lives the
protocol has saved, and how many could be saved by the final
eradication of the release of ozone-depleting substances such as
fluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Unless I am told to the contrary, we do
not have an analysis of how many lives have been saved. However, the
hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly right and it would be interesting to have
those figures, because the measure is a success
story.
Martin
Horwood: Does the Minister not agree that such figures
would be essential to any cost-benefit analysis, because they represent
the most important benefit?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is right. The cost
benefit should be analysed not purely in monetary terms, but based on
its impact on lives, on our carbon targets and on many other
environmental factors. It is quite appropriate for us to look at the
cost-benefit analysis broadly to see whether the proposal is
workable.
Mr.
Benyon: Have the Government carried out an impact
assessment of the new measures on UK businesses? If not, do they plan
to do so?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Once again, no. We do not think that this
is the appropriate moment, but I reiterate that we are working actively
with all stakeholders—those people who are or would be engaged
with the proposal—to scope out the impact. We will be ready to
do so when a proposal is introduced as a result of the
regulation.
Mr.
Jack: On page 35 of the Commission staff working document
to which I referred, paragraph 6.1.2, under description of options,
proposes two timetables to adjust the HCFC production phase-out dates,
one of which is deemed to be more ambitious than the other. Which one
does the Minister follow, and what is the
timetable?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: 2019 is the deadline to which we are
working, based on the scaling-up of our ambition internationally. We
think that it is achievable, realistic and right, because it is based
on our success to date and the realisation among Governments and
stakeholders that this is the right thing to
do.
Mr.
Jack: Phasing-out is one thing but my question to
the Minister referred to adjusting the HCFC production phase-out dates,
from 2025 to 2020 or from 2015 to 2010. I asked him which option he
preferred or backed, and his answer was 2090. I am now confused. Will
be clarify the
position?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I apologise, Mr. Bercow. It
must be my Welsh accent. To clarify, I said 2019—not 2090, which
would be a scaling-back of our ambition. The production of most of
these ozone-depleting substances has already been banned and HCFC
production will end in 2019 under the Commission’s proposals,
which we
support.
Mr.
Benyon: Will the Government ensure that we do not
gold-plate the regulations and place a greater burden on British
industry? Do the Government plan to monitor compliance with the
regulations in other countries, to ensure that we have a level playing
field?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The answer to both questions is yes. We
would not want to gold-plate the regulations. I should declare that I
have a double-hatted function, as the Minister in DEFRA who wears the
hat for better regulation. DEFRA is one of those Departments, as we
have seen today, with a propensity for dealing with regulation from the
European Union. To summarise, gold-plating, no; taking the appropriate
measures and building on our success to date, yes. The second part of
the question—
Mr.
Benyon: Whether the Government will monitor compliance
with the regulations in other
countries.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: It is wholly appropriate that on this, as
on other issues, we work effectively and closely with European partners
to ensure that the benefits are delivered, as they have been to date,
by partners working together. That is based on a multilateral approach,
and on what we are doing being replicated. We cannot happily safeguard
the ozone layer, or deal with climate change, on our
own.
Mr.
Jack: It is timely that the Minister has used the word
“multilateral”, as I wish to draw attention to paragraph
2.2.(2) on page 11 of the Commission staff working document, which
deals with the alarming growth of HCFC production and consumption in
developing countries. Will the Minister enlighten the Committee as to
whether all the efforts and the regulation that he wishes to agree to
will be undone by that alarming growth? If so, what are we doing about
it?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is right to point
out that trend. Part of the Montreal agreement was designed to
accelerate the phase-out in developing countries, because the situation
there is a concern. There are aspects that we have driven ahead, and
which we can continue to drive ahead, with developed countries, but we
cannot take our eye off the ball in developing countries. We want to
work with those countries to accelerate the phase-out of HCFCs
there.
Mr.
Jack: Although I welcome what the Minister has
said, it is a bit vague. Will he give us more detail about precisely
what the European Union and member states are
doing?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: It might help if I signal that our
specific intent is to phase out the production of HCFCs in developing
countries by 2030. We can be much more ambitious with our time scale
for developed nations, but a deadline of 2030 still provides the
imperative that the right hon. Gentleman would want to
see.
Martin
Horwood: On the subject of the illegal trade in ozone
depleting substances, which is referred to in particular on page 18 of
the Commission staff working document, the Commission clearly has an
ambition, which I am sure we all share, for that illegal trade to be
tackled much more comprehensively. Will the Minister give us an idea of
how exactly that would be done? Would it be through the World Trade
Organisation, or through measures taken by customs officials or the EU
itself?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: It would be done through all those
measures and also through import-export licences. We all want the trade
to be tackled collectively, but by the UK Government as well. We can do
that effectively. Doing it through the WTO is one mechanism. We can
also do it through international agreements and import-export licences
on the
products.
Mr.
Jack: The Minister referred to dialogue with the industry
about how it would deal with the practicalities, particularly in
relation to banked materials. As a veteran of the fridge mountain saga,
I wonder whether he can describe what techniques are involved in
recovering the
ODS materials from banked materials and describe the type of investment
that would have to be made in the United Kingdom to achieve that
objective.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I understand the right hon.
Gentleman’s desire to know the detail, but it has not been
worked through yet with stakeholders. That is what we are doing at this
moment, in anticipation of the necessity to bring the measure forward.
Although we do not have the detail of that, we learned lessons from the
so-called fridge mountain and how we should deal with it. That is why
at this moment, in advance of any proposal, we are doing exactly what
he suggests with stakeholders outside the House to bring forward the
detail of the proposal on how we strip out and dispose of what could
be, as the hon. Member for Newbury mentioned, quite a sizeable bank of
material.
Mr.
Jack: To enable me to put into context what the Minister
has said, will he outline for the benefit of the Committee the future
timetable of consideration of this matter, both by the Council and by
the European Parliament, taking into account the co-decision
situation?
| 
