14 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES IN
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
(30284)
17333/08
+ ADDS 1-2
COM(08) 809
| Draft Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (recast)
|
| Legal base | Article 95EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Business, Innovation and Skills
|
| Basis of consideration |
Minister's letter of 27 August 2009 |
| Previous Committee Report |
HC 19-xix (2008-09), chapter 2 (10 June 2009) |
| To be discussed in Council
| Second half of 2009 (see para 14.7 below) |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
14.1 Waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) has
been identified as one of the target areas for prevention, recovery
and safe disposal because it presents a number of problems. This
led the Community to adopt in 2002 two separate, but related measures
— Directive 2002/95/EC[49]
(which sought to restrict the use of certain hazardous substances
in such equipment) and Directive 2002/96/EC[50]
(which established procedures to reduce the amount of resultant
waste and to increase the level of recycling and recovery).
14.2 In December 2008, the Commission brought forward
two further proposals to recast each of these measures, the current
document relating to Directive 2002/95/EC. In harmonising the
rules on the restriction of the use of hazardous substances in
such equipment, that measure currently requires the use of substitutes
for mercury, lead, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and polybrominated
diphenyls (PPB) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) flame
retardants from 1 January 2008 (subject to exemptions where their
use is unavoidable, or where their substitutes would have greater
negative impacts on health or the environment). Whilst retaining
many of the existing provisions, the proposal would make a number
of changes, which were set out in our Report of 10 June 2009.
In particular, medical devices and monitoring and control equipment
would be included for the first time, but their application would
be phased in over a period up to 2017. In addition, a new annex
of exemptions had been proposed specifically for them, with derogations
being made additionally for military equipment (for which explicit
provision is not made in the current legislation).
14.3 We noted that the UK broadly supported the proposed
re-cast, but that medical devices and monitoring and control instruments
were originally excluded from Directive 2002/95/EC as being safety-critical
(and not to be exposed prematurely to substitute substances replacing
the restricted substances, in case equipment failure resulted).
Initial contact with the industry sectors concerned in the UK
had suggested that their introduction in a phased way over several
years, with exemptions for specific applications, would provide
additional environmental benefit, and appeared to be a reasonable
way forward, but that this was to be considered further as part
of the Government's consultation.
14.4 We went on to note that a subsequent Impact
Assessment had suggested that the inclusion of medical devices
and monitoring and control instruments could give rise to annual
costs within the UK of between £45 and 92 million, equivalent
to 1-2% of turnover, due principally to expenditure on the research
needed to bring about the product re-design and development required
to substitute the restricted substances. On the other hand, it
had not proved possible to quantify the benefits, and the Assessment
had therefore said that "it is not clear that the proposal
can be justified based on the current estimates of the size of
the potential benefits and costs involved" — a conclusion
which appeared to be in line with the Commission's own research,
and which included the comment that the impacts of restricting
hazardous substances in this equipment were extremely small, and
that they were "at the limits regarding costs and benefits".
We therefore asked for further information, including whether
the UK proposed to support the proposal, given these doubts.
Minister's letter of 27 August 2009
14.5 We have since received a letter of 27 August
2009 from the Minister for Business and Regulatory Reform at the
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Mr
Ian Lucas). He says that, in other circumstances, these doubts
may have led the UK to push for the two categories to continue
to be excluded from the Directive. However, he considers that
there are in this case a number of factors which lead the Government
to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to accept the Commission's
proposal. In particular, he suggests that:
- It is clear these two sectors
were only excluded from the Directive because they were considered
as safety-critical equipment, and that it was thought sensible
and prudent to see if the substitute substances used in non safety-critical
areas caused any problems over a longer period.
- Industry has been working towards their inclusion
on the assumption that the original Directive placed an obligation
on the Commission to do so, and many of the components they use
are already compliant, using alternative substances that are tested
to the appropriate level for critical applications.
- The Commission has consulted comprehensively,
and has agreed a long phase-in period up to 2017, with a continued
exemption for active implantable medical devices until at least
2020: also, where no appropriate substitute substance is available,
industry will (as now) be able to apply for an exemption from
the Directive for specific uses, with the proposal including a
new annex of exemptions for these two categories where it is already
clear that appropriate substitute substances are not available.
14.6 The Minister also points out that, although
the UK has maintained a scrutiny reserve, other Member States
have not objected to the inclusion of the two categories, and
that, although they will be made aware of the UK Impact Assessment,
he fully expects a majority to agree to the proposal. He therefore
believes that the additional costs are acceptable, given that
there will be a more coherent single market covering these two
sectors: and he says that industry has confirmed that the proposed
phase-in period is acceptable, their only concern being that the
dates proposed are, as a minimum, maintained during the negotiations
— which he says the Government will do its utmost to ensure
(as well as ensuring that the exemption procedure enables more
efficient use to be made of it).
14.7 The Minister says that he will ensure that we
are kept informed of developments, but there is already some indication
that the Swedish Presidency will achieve its objective of agreement
within the Council by the end of 2009.
Conclusion
14.8 It is of course perfectly possible to argue
that, notwithstanding any earlier intentions, a proposal should
not be adopted if there are credible doubts — as there appear
to be here — over its likely cost-effectiveness. Having
said that, we have noted the Minister's reasons for concluding
that the UK should in this instance support the proposal, and,
in the final analysis, we see no compelling grounds for seeking
to second-guess the Government. We are therefore clearing the
document.
49 OJ No. L 37, 13.02.03, p.19. Back
50
OJ No. L 37, 13.02.03, p.24. Back
|
