| Controls on Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases
|
|
Dr. Rudi Vis (Finchley and Golders Green) (Lab): I am sure that I am not the only one to have received a letter from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which, broadly speaking, supports the regulation. It has one question, with which I have some sympathy. It states:
Mr. Morley: I am glad to do so. My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I appreciate that he made it on behalf of industries in his constituency that have an interest. We agree that 2005 is unrealistic and intend to Column Number: 7 argue for 2007, which we think is more realistic. I am sure that that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders would share that view. I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that what I have said will provide some reassurance.Sue Doughty (Guildford) (LD): I am concerned about the issue of air conditioning in cars, and particularly about the fact that that Government seem to have watered down their original proposals. We have talked about the cost to the UK, but we are in competition with other European car manufacturers, so, in effect, it will be a cost across Europe. I would like to know more about the view that our Government took on some prudent work about using CO2 as an alternative to HFCs and HFC 134a—moving right away from HFCs. Mr. Morley: We have been considering that point and the range of alternative gases to HFCs. The problem is that it is not just an issue of costs, although cost is involved. If there is a more cost-effective way of achieving the same outcome, we should consider that. I make no apology for that, but there are some practical problems. Carbon dioxide can be and is used as a refrigerant gas, but as part of its operation it must be kept under very high pressure. We must therefore think about safety implications. Some of the alternative gases that have a lower threshold than 150 are inflammable. We need to think about the notion of inflammable gases in a car that might be in an accident in which it bursts into flames. Very high-pressure systems may suddenly explode for the same reason, causing damage to the occupants or bystanders. We must take into account such considerations. We must return to the point that I made earlier: we could achieve a desirable outcome by reducing leakage through improving the standards applied to automotive air conditioning systems. Allied to that, we should have higher standards of training, qualification, maintenance, servicing, repair and recycling. Those are perfectly reasonable alternatives to what is proposed, and will produce as good an environmental result, and perhaps a better practical and cost-effective outcome. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab): Given the enlargement of the Community, the new entrant countries will have to take the proposals on board, should they be accepted. Bearing in mind the potential gap in technology that they face, which all Members would recognise, will the Minister outline the research and the dialogue and discussion with those countries? Mr. Morley: I take my hon. Friend's point, although I am not sure about that potential gap in technology. A lot of the older, obsolete eastern European cars such as the Trabant have disappeared. Indeed, I am not sure whether Trabants ever came with air conditioning as an option. Having been driven around in one in Czechoslovakia many years ago, I am not sure that Column Number: 8 they ever came with heaters as an option either. Most cars in eastern Europe nowadays—those manufactured there, such as Skoda, and those that are imported—meet current automotive standards. Therefore, there is not much of a technology gap.The accession states become full members in May, so the regulation will apply to them. They are in a position to address the regulation as well as we are, although they face the same kind of challenges, costs and practical issues that we do. Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con): What reduction in tonnes of carbon equivalent would there be if the do-nothing option were adopted? The documents before the Committee, particularly the regulatory impact assessment, set out the measures that are already in place. What benefit would they yield without going on to the next stage set out in the draft regulation? Mr. Morley: If I understand the hon. Gentleman, he is asking what the reduction would be if we did nothing about the proposed regulation. The figures that I have are those that we would achieve if we applied the reduction standards. The hon. Gentleman's point is that doing so is not the only way of achieving a reduction of CO2 emissions. That is true, although bearing in mind that we are in the more comfortable position of having met our Kyoto targets and are moving beyond them, some member states set more store by the measure. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the proposals are only one way of reducing CO2 emissions, I would agree, but we should consider all measures. As I have examined the details of the draft regulation, I have become convinced that the enhanced HFC 134a approach of better, higher-quality systems with reduced leakage would have a desirable impact on climate. It is an issue that we should pursue. Mrs. Janet Dean (Burton) (Lab): I have received correspondence from INEOS Fluor, and I am sure that other hon. Members have received similar correspondence. It encloses some details from the European Partnership for Energy and the Environment, in which it states:
Mr. Morley: That is a serious point; we have had representations on the best way to take the matter forward. My hon. Friend mentioned article 175, which is the basis of environmental regulations. It would provide a bit of flexibility so that member states could do slightly different things. For example, on the point made by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), if measures for meeting CO2 targets were much more important to some member states than to us, they might want to take an different approach. On the other hand, if we want a consistent approach—the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) asked about Column Number: 9 competitiveness across the European Union—article 95, which is the common European article, is perhaps the best approach.We should also consider the construction and use regulations for vehicles, with which all new vehicle designs must comply. We have not taken a definitive position on the matter, as we are still listening to representations, but I can say to my hon. Friend that the Government understand that the issue must be resolved. I have some sympathy with her views. Mrs. Spelman: It is an important principle to know beforehand what will replace something that is to be taken away. Let us consider, for example, all the problems in the other place. The Minister touched on alternatives to HFCs and highlighted the dangers of using CO2. Apart from CO2, what other alternatives are available? Another question is the capacity of British motor manufacturing to effect the transition within a time scale. Will the Minister comment on the state of preparedness of the Japanese motor car industry in that respect? I understand that Japanese manufacturers—Toyota in particular—are in a very strong position technologically to enable them to replace HFCs in an environmentally benign way. There is a question of how domestic European car manufacturers will compete in that race. Mr. Morley: I understand that point. I would not claim to be au fait with where the Japanese car industry is on replacements, but it is fair to say that it is an innovative sector that takes environmental issues very seriously when considering its car manufacturing policy. I am glad to say that one of the issues that the Prime Minister raised when he was in Japan recently was a sharing of clean fuel technology between Japanese and the British industries, which is desirable. I do not have a complete list of the range of chemicals. There are different chemicals for different refrigeration designs; that is a complication in itself. An alternative chemical to HFCs is commonly used in car air conditioners. It is the main one in the frame for use. The hon. Lady might like to know that some very large refrigeration systems use ammonia. It is not a bad chemical to use for refrigeration, but it tends to be used in big systems such as cold stores. The gases that are used very much depend on the size and design of the system. Only one alternative gas that could be considered for cars is flammable, and I am sure that that would be controlled by various regulations on car construction. The issue is complex because there are different gases for different sectors, and for different designs and types of refrigeration. Sue Doughty: I am interested to know whether the Government will phase out CFCs in domestic appliances, because there are alternative technologies. If they were to lead on the matter and explain what could be done, there would be economies of scale. Obviously, we want to reduce and limit the costs to industry and consumers of a switch-over. It appears that solutions exist, so where are the Government taking us? Column Number: 10 Mr. Morley: I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady means by solutions. I have explained that there are pros and cons with different types of gases, and that it comes down to a practical solution for a desirable outcome. One of the best ways forward is to concentrate on the standards of low-leakage systems. The question is not so much the use of the gas but its release into the atmosphere. If one is confident that one has low-leakage systems and good recovery and maintenance, one achieves that outcome and improves the situation.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 14 January 2004 |
