14. END OF LIFE VEHICLES
Letter from Kim Howells MP, Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Competition and Consumer Affairs,
Department of Trade and Industry, to Lord Tordoff, Chairman of
the Committee
Thank you for your letter of 24 June 1999[4]
informing me that the Committee had cleared my Supplementary Explanatory
Memorandum on the End of Life Vehicles Directive dated 21 June.
I have also seen Jimmy Hood's letter of 23 June giving clearance
by the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and am writing
to him in similar terms.
I am grateful that the House of Lords Committee
was able to look at this issue again despite short notice and
give clearance in time for the June Environment Council. I will
make sure that officials see your letter and are aware of the
points that are set out in it.
As you may have heard, the June Environment
Council agreed to a further delay, in recognition of concerns
expressed by one member State over the approach adopted to producer
responsibility. You will recall that the present draft text (Article
5.4) gives each member State a substantial degree of flexibility
to decide how best to recover the treatment costs for vehicles
scrapped from 2003 onwards. The particular concern of the member
State in question related to the possibility that producers would
be asked to meet the costs of treatment for the existing vehicles
that are already registered throughout Europe.
You may like to know that senior officials from
member States have now agreed a compromise amendment on this point.
This would bring forward introduction of the provisions in Article
5.4 for new vehicles to 2001 but delay these provisions for existing
vehicles (ie those sold before the introduction of the Directive)
until 2006. Senior officials also provisionally agreed to delay
the first recycling target from 2005 to 2006 to ensure that it
coincides with the application of the new provisions for existing
vehicles. While the UK had been prepared to support the December
text, we can accept the changes proposed. It will allow more time
for consultation and co-operation with business, local authorities
and NGOs to help inform the design of our system for implementation.
And while the delay in the recycling targets is disappointing,
it is only for one year. Moreover, the UK still has the flexibility
to introduce free take-back and producer responsibility in advance
of 2006 for existing vehicles if we chose.
Common Position is expected to be formally agreed
through a written procedure in the course of next week. It seems
likely that we have now succeeded in finalising the text for Common
Position on terms which are very similar to the December text
and which therefore are acceptable to the UK.
I apologise for the delay in writing to you
but I wanted to wait to give you the outcome of the officials
meeting.
26 July 1999
Letter from Patricia Hewitt MP, Minister
for Small Business and E-Commerce, Department of Trade and Industry,
to Lord Tordoff, Chairman of the Committee
Further to Dr Howells' letter of 26 July I am
now writing to confirm that a Common Position on the End of Life
Vehicles Directive has now been agreed on the basis set out in
that letter. I am writing as I now have responsibility for this
issue following the Ministerial reshuffle.
To summarise, the text agreed is substantially
the same as the one cleared by both the House of Commons and the
House of Lords Scrutiny Committees in June. However, that text
has been amended as described in Dr Howells' letter of 26 July
(ie bringing forward the provisions in Article 5.4 for new vehicles
to 2001, but delaying these provisions for existing vehicles until
2006 and delaying the first recovery target from 2005 to 2006).
I attach an updated Regulatory Impact Assessment
that takes into account these amendments.
28 September 1999
REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT—UPDATE
COUNCIL PRELIMINARY AGREEMENT AND THE COMMON
POSITION
| Council Preliminary Agreement December 1998
|
| Articles | Costs
|
| 4 (hazardous material) | £0 plus redesign and other heavy metal restrictions
|
| 5 (take back) | £233 million plus collection (possible overestimate)
|
| 6 (treatment) | £6 million (possible underestimate)
|
| 7 (targets) | £26 million 2005—£102 million 2015 plus redesign
|
| 8 (coding and manuals) | £4 million plus coding
|
| 9 (information) | £43 million
|
| Total Costs | £312 million 2005—£388 million 2015
|
Article 5.4 of the Council Preliminary Agreement gave each
Member State a degree of flexibility to decide who would incur
the costs for the treatment of ELVs from 2003 onwards, subject
to the restriction that car producers should meet "all or
a significant part" of these costs.
The Common Position text now brings this provision forwards
for new vehicles to 2001—and moves it backwards for existing
vehicles to 2006. It still requires the collection of all end-of-life
vehicles and higher treatment standards from the introduction
of the Directive, although each Member State is allowed 18 months
for implementation. Whilst these costs will be incurred by the
UK, one way or another, they might or might not all fall directly
on the producers. Each Member State would still be able to pass
national legislation allowing them to place these costs onto the
producers before 2005, if they chose to do so.
Overall, the costs associated with meeting the recovery and
recycling targets will be slightly lower. Apart from not incurring
higher dismantling and reprocessing costs in 2005, the capital
investments in infrastructure, recycling capacity etc will take
place up to one year later. Once discounted, these costs will
be perceived now as being lower. The delay will also mean that
there will be an additional year for producers, dismantlers, recyclers
etc to plan for the targets and put the necessary infrastructure
and other required investment in place. This should lead to lower
costs, at the least in the initial years.
The environmental benefit, estimated at £1 million,
will fall due to the potential one year delay in the achievement
of the recovery and recycling targets. This fall will, however,
be small as it will only reflect one year's difference between
the 2005 recovery/recycling rate achieved and the 85 per cent/80
per cent targets. We currently recycle or reuse some 77 per cent
of the weight of ELVs, and would expect the difference between
this rate and the target to rise over the next six years as the
country moves towards compliance.
Letter from Patricia Hewitt MP, Minister for Small
Business and E-Commerce, Department of Trade and Industry, to
Lord Tordoff, Chairman of the Committee
I am writing to keep you informed of the latest developments
on the proposed EU End of Life Vehicles Directive.
On 3 February 2000, a plenary session of the European Parliament
passed 33 amendments to the Common Position text of this Directive.
It seems clear that there is strong opposition to many of these
amendments from member States. It now appears therefore that conciliation
on this Directive between Council and European Parliament is inevitable;
the formal conciliation process is likely to begin in mid-March
and can take up to eight weeks.
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 18 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 18 months after
the Directive came into force (2002). These vehicles would not
begin to be scrapped in significant numbers until 2010-15—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 cadmium) 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
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 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 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 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.
29 February 2000
4
Printed in Correspondence with Ministers, 17th Report,
Session 1998-99, HL Paper 94, p 19. Back
| 
