SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS BY PERSONS AGGRIEVED BY STATUTORY NUISANCES (Hansard, 29 October 1990)

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
With this, it will he convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 179 to 182 and 187.

§ Mr. Marland
It is disappointing that neither under part III of the Bill nor in the Lords amendments is there any specific reference to the containment of chlorofluorocarbon gas. CFCs are greenhouse gases and are up to 10,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. They do enormous damage to the ozone layer, with the subsequent damage to the earth's surface that will flow from that.
CFCs are mainly used as a propellant or blowing agent and have been found a great deal in aerosols, although alternatives to CFCs as a blowing agent in aerosols are being produced. They are used in air conditioning units, in insulating cavity walls and in refrigerators. They are used for putting the insulating foam into the walls of refrigerators and in the coolant in the back of the refrigerator.
An enormous amount of CFC gases is in use. Some local authorities, and I am pleased that Gloucestershire is one of them, are making an effort to milk the refrigerant from the back of old refrigerators. However, they are only scratching the surface of the problem. It is estimated that 33 million domestic refrigerators are in use in the United Kingdom, and 3 million more refrigerators are being used every year. It is estimated that it will be five years before 836 CFCs are designed out of refrigerator foam. Over the next five years, 48 million refrigerators will vent into the atmosphere, producing almost 32,000 tonnes of CFC gas.
The major problem is that the overall percentage of CFCs in refrigerators comes not from the coolant but from the foam round the outside of it. The German Government have recognised the problem and have passed laws outlawing the venting into the atmosphere of CFC gas from refrigerators. German Landers, the local authority areas, are stockpiling refrigerators until they can be treated.
It is important to point out that the joint working party of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and the Institute of Wastes Management recommended recently the enactment of legislation in the United Kingdom requiring the recovery of CFCs from refrigerants in the short term and the phasing in of the requirement to recover all CFCs from insulating foam as soon as that is feasible.
The technology to recover CFCs from both coolant and insulating foam in domestic refrigerators is now at hand. Encouragement is required to ensure that the new technology is used efficiently and effectively. This can probably come about only through legislation and by steering local authorities on what they should do in destroying refrigerators.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister reassure me that suitable legislation for the safe processing of domestic refrigerators and insulating foam can be produced under this part of the Bill?

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
Much good work has been done, particularly by ICI at Runcorn. It serves no purpose to suggest that industry is not trying. Many of us have the impression that industry is trying hard to overcome this fundamental problem.
If we are to be realistic about recovering CFCs from refrigerators, and there are to be regulations, let alone legislation, is not it important that the measures should relate to the design stage of the refrigerators? Recovery is very much easier if a refrigerator is designed for its eventual death. This is not an easy problem, but I should like to hear the Government's comments on any plans that they have in mind.

§ Mr. Cryer
It would be helpful to know the Government's attitude in general towards this problem. It is important to introduce regulations controlling the recovery of CFCs from domestic and industrial refrigerators when their time expires. They should not be vented into the atmosphere. There is already legislation dealing with the disposal of refrigerators because of the danger of CFCs and because children become trapped in them.
The Government permit the export of between 35,000 and 40,000 tonnes a year of CFCs. There is little point in pursuing controls over the recovery of CFCs in refrigerators in the United Kingdom when the Government are exporting CFCs to countries where there is a minimal possibility that they will scrutinise use and disposal in the way we do. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the export of CFCs will be rapidly curtailed. Although I am sure that it is not a responsibility of his Department, it would be absurd for the Department of the Environment to introduce controls on the disposal of existing CFCs in refrigerators while the Department of 837 Trade permits the export of thousands of tonnes of CFCs to other countries. Whether the CFCs are in domestic refrigerators or in exported goods, they still affect the ozone layer. It is important to tackle both.
I hope that the Minister can assure me that he will refer this matter to the Department of Trade, which was extremely elusive about providing me with information when I asked questions about the export of CFCs. The first Minister told me that the statistics were not collected. Fortunately, it was discovered shortly after that the statistics were collected. They were provided in a parliamentary answer in Hansard at the beginning of the final part of the Session. As this information is circulating and the Department of the Environment is now sweeping all these environmental pollutants away with its new broom, I hope that the Department will send that new broom to other Departments of State.

§ Mr. Trippier
Let me begin by responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who asked whether I could give him an assurance that, at some future stage and without having recourse to primary legislation, the matter that he brought to our attention could be addressed by regulation, by order or whatever. My answer to his question is, not under clause 79, which we are now considering. But—I hope that I shall be able to get this confirmed in the Department tomorrow—my clear reading of the financial and explanatory memorandum is that such secondary legislation might be introduced under clause 82. I quote: Clause 82 amends the Clean Air Acts to allow regulations to be made under affirmative resolution procedure to extend the controls over smoke, grit, dust and fume emissions to any specified gaseous emissions. I think that that covers the matter and that, had my hon. Friend asked me the same question in respect of clause 82, I could have said yes. I shall confirm that to him by letter tomorrow. I had better make it clear that I am no lawyer, but I think that I will be right on that.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made it perfectly clear that great advances had been made in CFC substitution. That is a source of great pride to British people who believe that ICI played no small part in the development of such substitutes—more commonly known as HCFCs. No one is kidding himself—least of all me—that those substitutes are the complete answer. As I think the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, even they can be harmful, but to an infinitesimal degree compared with the chlorofluorocarbons with which we are all familiar. The perfect answer has not yet been found and, to my knowledge, we have not yet found a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration. Great progress has been made on substitute CFCs in aerosols, however, and I do not think that it will be very long before technology is so advanced that an effective substitute for the use of CFCs in refrigeration is found. In that regard, research is being conducted with a consortium that includes DuPont as well as ICI.
My concern for what happens in the developing and third world countries, especially with regard to the use of CFCs, is shared by other hon. Members—particularly the hon. Member for Bradford, South. Let me refer to the ozone layer conference held in London in June this year. It was perfectly clear to me that we could persuade the Indians and the Chinese to sign the amended Montreal 838 protocol only if we offered them assistance not only through the recognised overseas aid routes but through the transfer of technology. I see no future in those countries—or in any other countries for that matter—continuing to use CFCs when the developed countries have already undertaken, under the Montreal protocol, to reduce their use. This country is 10 years ahead of its international obligations in that regard.
The third world and developing countries look to the industrialised and developed countries to put all these matters right because they genuinely believe that it is entirely our fault that the problem has arisen and that the hole in the ozone layer has been created. I think that they are right, by the way, but in a speech on this subject in Cairo in December last year, I made it clear that even if all the industrialised countries or all the OECD countries reduced their use of CFCs, we should never repair the hole in the ozone layer if the developing and third world countries continued to use them. That is a statement of fact; it is not hypothesis.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South. We should not be encouraging the use of CFCs without the substitutes in those countries. We have now managed to persuade companies like ICI to make available the technology transfer which will use substitutes instead of CFCs. The meeting to that end took place during the same week as the ozone layer conference was held in London, and I was party to that meeting with Chris Hampson, ICI's main board director.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South can take comfort from the fact that we are all singing from the same song sheet. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If we had not had the undertaking, India and China would not have signed the protocol at the end of that week.

§ Mr. Dalyell
May I have an undertaking that I will receive a letter about the alterations that can be made at the design stage of refrigerators and other CFC-using equipment?

§ Mr. Trippier
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any specific details about that, as I am not qualified to do so. However, I will write to him about it.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I believe that the Government took the contrary view in the other place and supported the right of appeal to the Crown court. I was persuaded that that was a proper and right course and I am intrigued to know what revelation has caused the Government to take a different view now that the matter has come back to this place. It seems proper to allow an appeal on these important matters to the Crown court, and I should be interested to learn what has changed.

§ Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Amendment No. 183 was tabled by Lord Nathan on 839 Report in another place and it was accepted by the Government. At that stage, clause 79 was drafted in terms which meant that proceedings for a nuisance under subsections (1) and (2) were civil in character. Hence it was necessary to make specific provision for a right of appeal to the Crown court.
On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Byron tabled amendment No. 178, which was designed to restore the current position under the Public Health Act 1936, under which a magistrates court is empowered to impose a fine at the same time as it makes a nuisance order. As the matter will be heard in a magistrates court, the right of appeal is implicit. Amendment No. 183, as it was originally tabled, is unnecessary and otiose. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is right and proper to overturn it.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
Although the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and I do not agree necessarily with all new provisions with regard to proceedings for statutory nuisance in the magistrates court, the amendment seems persuasive, as the matter is now a criminal offence and the right of appeal follows automatically to the Crown court.