| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Barometers: EU Regulations
11.28 am
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they have now revised their view of the likely impact of the European Union regulations concerning mercury on the makers and restorers of barometers.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Government’s view has not changed. The EU regulation will cover only new barometers; existing domestic devices, especially antiques, will still be able to be used and traded. A two-year derogation in regard to new ones will allow the industry time to make the changes. There will continue to be a market for skilled craftsmen and women for the maintenance, repair and restoration of these instruments, as well as for the manufacture of devices for scientific and industrial markets.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, how can it make sense to destroy an entire industry making mercury barometers, which we have had in this country since the time of Queen Anne, on the grounds that mercury is a toxic substance, when the industry uses a total of 70 pounds of mercury every year and the same institution, the European Union, has voted to ban the use of incandescent light bulbs and to substitute low-energy bulbs, which are already using 4 tonnes of mercury a year and, by the time we have substitution, it will be hundreds of tonnes? That is an outrage. Surely the Government should intervene on behalf of an ancient industry with specialist craftsmen making not just barometers but mercury thermometers and clocks.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we did intervene; that is why the derogation is there. The derogation for two years was not there until we requested it. There is no effect on the marketing, importation and trading in antique barometers. The proof of the pudding is simple. There was full consultation on the issue. We did the normal consultation at Defra, which includes hundreds of organisations. None of the barometer manufacturers responded to the consultation. None of them has been in touch with my department, even in recent weeks. There are adequate substitutes for mercury and, as everyone knows, there is a worldwide attempt to remove mercury in all aspects at both EU and United Nations level.
As for lights, the typical mercury barometer contains between 100 and 600 grams of mercury. That is about 200 to 1,000 times more than a thermometer and 25,000 to 150,000 times more than an energy-saving light bulb. One is not comparing like with like here.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the reason that barometer makers have not been in touch may be that they thought that the exemption would cover them if they were a very small business? The Minister will no doubt agree that they can only restore barometers, they cannot make them. They have the skill to make barometers, but they cannot use it. The Minister has got this one wrong; will he admit it?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the more accurate barometers, which most if not all manufacturers make, are not mercury barometers. I looked at a catalogue from one of them this morning. Out of seven barometers in the photographs, only two were mercury. The aneroid barometers are more accurate. In fact, they are so accurate that when the Guardian published an article last week headlined,
it illustrated it with a photograph of an aneroid barometer, not a mercury barometer.
I do not think that this has been got wrong at all. Mercury is a highly toxic substance. The fire service responded to the consultation by saying that it agreed with taking out mercury barometers because of the risk of vaporisation of mercury. The average barometer is a health risk. The smallest mercury barometer would contaminate 4.5 million litres of water, enough to fill 40,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. That is how toxic and dangerous it is.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, but does the Minister not accept that this will close down an industry—a small one, it is true—without any compensation? He says that the skills will be maintained, but if people cannot be involved in making barometers, I cannot see how those skills will be maintained. Perhaps the Minister will tell me how. Secondly, will he address the issue about light bulbs raised by my noble friend? At the end of their life, they will probably end up in landfill, which will be more contaminating than the situation that we face at the moment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is fair to be concerned about the latter point. There must be procedures for the new light bulbs. Effectively, fluorescent light bulbs, the normal strips, can be recycled now. The energy-saving light bulbs that we are now being encouraged to purchase are also fluorescent. There will have to be procedures for disposing of them in due course in a proper way. As I said, the amount of mercury is infinitesimal compared to the amount of mercury in a barometer; there is between 25,000 and 150,000 times more in a barometer than in an energy-saving light bulb.
As I said, we received no response from the industry to the consultation, although Defra had kept in touch with those three firms for the five years prior to the regulation to warn them when it was coming through. A point was made about the derogation. The maintenance and repair of antique barometers is not affected. There is no time limit on that whatever. Aneroid barometers can be made with antique surrounds, and they are more accurate than mercury.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I declare an interest: my great-great-grandfather, Louis Bellatti, and my great-great-uncle, Carlos Bellatti, made barometers here in the first three decades of the 19th century. They brought their expertise as immigrants from Italy. Is this not another case of a Commission proposal which brings the European Union into disrepute? I speak as a supporter of our membership. Does the Minister realise that there is widespread concern in Europe, not least here, in Italy and in France, about this proposal? Can he say how many deaths and how many cases of serious harm from the use and presence of mercury barometers have been caused in this country in each of the past five years? I pay tribute to the Minister’s interest in this subject outside the Chamber.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. To the best of my knowledge, there is unanimity among the 27 member states on this. The Parliament has decided on the issue. There is no dispute, as I understand it—I checked this morning—and if we were out on our own, we would be one against 26.
On the noble Lord’s latter point, I do not want to start a hare running, but for years and years lead in paint was thought to be appropriate. It is still allowed for the restoration of old paintings but not domestically. For years and years, motor cars had asbestos brakes—not any more. It was always thought that, as it was on the margin, it was not causing a problem to anyone, but asbestos was subsequently discovered to be dangerous and toxic. It is the same with mercury.
Business of the House: Debate Today
11.37 am
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord McNally set down for today shall be limited to five hours.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Trade Marks (Relative Grounds) Order 2007
National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (Amendment) Regulations 2007
National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2007
Limited Liability Partnerships (Amendment) Regulations 2007
Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2007
Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 Statutory Sum Order 2007
Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2007
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the seven Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the orders and regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Greater London Authority Bill
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Andrews on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Schedule 1,Clauses 5 to 28,Clauses 36 to 42,Clauses 29 to 35,Clauses 43 to 55,Schedule 2,Clauses 56 and 57.—(Baroness Morgan of Drefelin.)On Question, Motion agreed to.
EU: UK Membership
11.38 am
Lord McNally rose to call attention to the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union and to the contribution which the European Union can make to the pursuit of United Kingdom national interests and to the management of global problems; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for warming the House up and getting it into a European frame of mind for this debate. I called this debate in the anticipation that in a week’s time, the European Union approaches not so much a crossroads as a positive spaghetti junction of decisions. Our speakers’ list today reveals a great deal of road sense and collective wisdom about negotiating Europe’s tricky corners. So it is with more than the usual pious hope that I ask that the copy of Hansard that will contain our debate goes into the weekend Box for the Prime Minister. I am sure that he will find some useful advice from the European negotiation equivalents of Lewis Hamilton due to speak between now and 4.30 pm.
I do not belong to that now select group which came back from the Second World War with a “never again” commitment to building a better and more united Europe. But I am part of that post-war generation who endured what President Kennedy termed,
I have been a member of the European movement since my student days because the arguments for co-operation with our nearest neighbours seem to answer fully Dean Acheson’s famous jibe that we had lost an empire and failed to find a role in the world.
In the late 1960s, I had the honour of working with Jean Monnet, and I remember asking him what had been the driving force behind the schemes he had brought forward which had led to the creation of the Common Market. He told me, “I wanted to create something that would make it impossible for France and Germany ever to go to war with each other again”.
That ambition, a noble ambition given the history of the first half of the 20th century, has meant that the European project has always had a political as well as an economic agenda. The key arguments for Britain's membership have always been prosperity and peace. Looking back on 40 years of campaigning, I do not regret my youthful enthusiasm. Peace and prosperity have been delivered. Europe stands as an example to the world of how old enmities can be put aside and a new order established by consent on the basis of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
That our Union now consists of 27, soon to be 28, sovereign states, with others queueing to join us, is an example and a model which others are eager to follow. The political benefits are there for all to see. I know from direct personal experience in government in the 1970s that it was the underpinning offered by membership of the European family that stabilised and strengthened the fragile democracies of Greece, Spain and Portugal as they emerged from right-wing dictatorship. Likewise, it has been the carrot of EU membership that has given strength to the reformers in former Soviet bloc countries to push through the reforms of governance and legal systems to underpin their fledgling democracies. So I do not speak today as an apologist not for a Europe that has failed but for one that has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.
However, I am also aware of another reality. My children are aged 17, 13 and 11. The events that motivated the founding fathers and so influenced my Europeanism are now part of their history lessons, as remote to them as the Crimean War was to me. I cannot make the case for Europe to my children and their generation purely on the basis of the historic failures of the 20th century. The case has to be made anew on the basis of the challenges and opportunities facing those whose lives will stretch well into the 21st century. Making that case is urgent and necessary if we are not to be lured into a fatal wrong turn by old prejudices and out-of-date arguments.
I will listen to two speeches today with extra care—I will, of course, listen to all of them. The first will come from the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, right at the end, but nevertheless most welcome. In recent months, he has tried to give an intellectual polish to his leader's attempts to bring his party's approach to Europe more in line with reality. As I said, in the past I have listened to him most carefully. However, too often, his analysis and solutions remind me of a cartoon of the early 1960s that showed a football team dressing room. In the dressing room were Adenauer, de Gaulle and the other leading European statesmen of the day, all depicted putting on their football boots and football shirts. At the dressing room door stood Sir Alec Douglas-Home, immaculate in his cricket whites and holding a cricket bat. The cartoon was entitled, “Joining the Game”. The message is as clear today as it was then—it is no use turning up ready to play a game that the rest of Europe is not remotely interested in playing.
The other speech that I will be examining with great interest is that of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. In particular, I will be looking to see how much his remarks chime with those of Mr Ed Balls who recently published a Centre for European Reform pamphlet in which he called for a hard-headed pro-Europeanism. He explained it thus:
“Pro-European, because we recognise that we are stronger by co-operating with our partners. Hardheaded because we have the confidence to put our national interest first, to say ‘no’ sometimes and to argue our case where we believe Europe risks taking the wrong course.”
That surely offers the basis for a broad consensus of approach, especially if it were to be matched by Ministers ceasing to treat every European decision in terms of victories for which credit is taken or defeats for which Brussels is blamed.
The first test of hard-headed pro-Europeanism comes next week. As the Guardian pointed out last Monday, the Euro-sceptic British press is already cranking up discussions on treaty amendments to demand a referendum, whatever is agreed. It will take political courage in all parties to resist that clamour; but if what emerges from the discussions at the summit looks and feels different from the constitutional treaty, if it is no more than a prudent adjustment of the rules in recognition of enlargement and to make the EU more efficient and more effective, we should say so and deal with the measures accordingly. Though the negotiations will be Mr Blair’s last hurrah, the political test will be Mr Brown’s. Again as the Guardian put it in Monday’s editorial:
“The incoming Prime Minister has to decide. Does he want to bash Europe? Or does he now want to help build it? It is a big strategic moment. Mr Brown should embrace the strategic option in spite of the political difficulties”.
If he does, I believe that addressing the real European agenda becomes easier, but no less daunting.
As the G8 demonstrated, Europe’s response to climate change will be pivotal in obtaining constructive responses from the USA and the super-economies of Brazil, India and China. There is still a chance to rescue the Doha round of talks, but it has to retain its development objectives—and again there is a need for Europe to move. The Lisbon agenda seems badly stalled, yet its target of becoming,
is still the only realistic strategy for Europe. There is a need for Britain to play a full part in supporting the German initiative for a better Euro-American dialogue, as well as supporting Portugal’s ambition for its presidency of a Euro-African summit. Relations with Russia also need to be put back firmly on the European agenda.
On issues nearer home, I know that some participants will have received the impressive briefing from the Corporation of London. The success of our financial services industries in Europe has been truly amazing. I will not delay the debate by quoting figures but I refer those interested to The Importance of Wholesale Financial Services to the EU—a piece of research recently published by the Corporation of London. Let me just quote one paragraph from that brief:
“For the EU to take advantage of the full growth potential for wholesale financial services, European policymakers should be encouraged to introduce measures to maintain and strengthen the process of integration in the financial service industry, enabling Europe’s financial clusters to contribute further to the wealth and international competitiveness of the Union and so to the fulfilment of the Lisbon agenda”.
That is the message from Britain’s most successful sector—the goose that is laying the golden eggs. No wonder Mr Ed Balls, with his City experience, says:
He sees, as the City sees, that there is practical work to be done on matters of urgent importance to Britain. Indeed at some stage Mr Balls and his Prime Minister will have to apply the test of hard-headed pro-Europeanism to Britain’s membership of the euro.
Noble Lords will by now have gathered that the thrust of my argument today is that whatever the topic, whether it be the fight against terrorism, the war on drugs and people trafficking, the protection of our environment or our capacity to influence events in Africa or the Middle East, or any of the other issues that I have touched on, Britain has a better chance of defending its own interests and influencing world events from within a successful European Union. Of course, the road ahead is not without its hazards, but none of the threats we face is greater than those faced by the “Never Again” generation. Of course, the shape and scope of 21st century Europe will not match exactly the Monnet blueprint. He knew that. In old age, he wrote:
“It is impossible to foresee today the decisions that could be taken in a new context tomorrow. The essential thing is to hold fast to the few fixed principles that have guided us since the beginning: gradually to create among Europeans the broadest common interest, served by common democratic institutions, to which the necessary sovereignty has been delegated”.
So it will be our Europe, my children’s Europe, not Monnet’s, that we are building. That is not to ignore what has been achieved so far nor fail to take pride in those achievements. I genuinely look forward to listening to all the contributions because I am confident that in the next five hours Ministers will receive some very useful navigational advice as they approach Europe’s Spaghetti Junction. I beg to move for Papers.
11.50 am
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has done this House an immense service by raising, and speaking so effectively on, this issue. Too often Europe is unfairly disparaged. Sometimes it makes mistakes, but we all do. Being a European Commissioner was undoubtedly a highly salient feature of my life. I had the good fortune to serve in an excellent Commission, headed by Jacques Delors, who in my view was one of the best presidents of the European Union.
It is a great pity that the then Prime Minister did so much to distance herself from the work of the Commission. I do not think that she carried all her Ministers with her in that destructive effort. Nevertheless, if Britain had been more positive, the whole history of Europe and of our country could have been much better and very different.
The European Union and the legal texts on which it is based have much changed, particularly in recent times. There are now 27 members, whereas there were only 12 in my day. We witnessed the end of the Cold War. We have seen Europe look increasingly outward and actively involve itself in the process of globalisation. The prosperity of all its members has undoubtedly increased and with it democracy has thrived. This has meant that human rights have been more widely respected and, with that, the internal market has developed. The EU’s ability to participate ever more effectively in the global debate on climate change and generally speak more authoritatively in international fora has followed.
We have perceived, particularly in recent times, a disparity between these radical changes and, I believe, a waning public support in some instances for the European Union. Some have been malicious about that but there is undoubtedly real concern as well. This is based on a misunderstanding and a failure on the part of those charged to explain the great advantages which the European Union has bestowed. Perhaps we should begin to listen more than we do. How effectively have the rigours of examining the credentials of the new members and the benefits that will accrue to all of us been explained to the public?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |