HL Deb 06 February 1990 vol 515 cc768-82

7.25 p.m.

Baroness Robson of Kiddington

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The aim of the Bill is to eliminate as soon as possible CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances. Failure to do so will result in further destruction of the ozone layer, leading to increased incidence of skin cancer, possible cancer and genetic damage, stunted growth and other damage to plants and crops as well as significant damage to terrestrial and aquatic food chains. The other reason for eliminating CFCs and other such chemicals is that they are very important greenhouse gases, as became very clear in last week's debate on the greenhouse effect.

One molecule of CFC12 is 10,000 times more effective at trapping radiation than is a molecule of carbon dioxide. In 1987 NASA, the United States space agency, sent a converted U2 spy plane over Antarctica. It found that the ozone hole was the size of the USA and as deep as Mount Everest. At certain altitudes 97.5 per cent. of the ozone was missing.

CFCs are not natural gases. They were invented in 1930 by the same man who put lead in petrol. Therefore they have only been about for 50 years and already we are more than aware of the damage that they do. The scientific facts and figures are now largely beyond dispute and widely accepted. In 1987 the Montreal Conference saw 46 countries sign an agreement to cut by half consumption of some CFCs and halons, mainly in fire extinguishers, by 1999. That is now accepted as totally inadequate. A further meeting of 81 nations in Helsinki in May 1989 loosely agreed to ban all CFCs by the year 2000 but that was conditional on acceptable replacements being found. Some of the new replacements, while less harmful than CFC12, still have ozone-depleting and greenhouse-inducing properties.

The United Kingdom has a very important role to play. It is the leading producer and exporter within Western Europe and itself uses some 6 per cent. of the world's CFCs. By contrast, China, which has refused to sign the Montreal Protocol, is responsible for a mere 2 per cent. of CFC releases. However, countries like China, India, Indonesia and Brazil are all intent on raising the living standards of their people, which is quite understandable. Among the things with which they want to provide them are refrigerators. Even if those contries were to sign the Helsinki agreement, which they are unlikely to do under present conditions, they would still be allowed to increase their domestic consumption up to the permitted level, which means that global use of the substance will be approximately double the 1986 level. It is therefore the responsibility of developed countries to produce alternatives. A complete ban on every CFC by the year 2000 would not stabilise ozone levels until 2050 because of the CFCs already emitted that have yet to reach the ozone layer.

I now refer to the main proposals of the Bill. Clause 1(1)(a) brings forward from 1999 to 1995 the date when CFCs have to be eliminated. It appears that that would be perfectly possible because, for instance, Sweden has already undertaken to eliminate CFCs by 1994. If it can be done in Sweden, I presume that it can also be undertaken here.

Clause 1(1)(b) refers to the elimination of the use of CFCs in the manufacture of flexible foam by 1st July 1991. This perhaps poses the most difficult problem. Less success in research has been achieved so far, but a West German company, Thanex Chemicals, has now developed a flexible foam without CFCs. It therefore appears realistic that the aim of the Bill could be achieved.

The safe destruction of used flexible foam poses a perhaps more dfficult problem. However, there seems to be no reason why such foam could not be safely stored until such time as an appropriate method has been perfected.

In Clause 1(1)(c) the Bill proposes the elimination of CFCs in aerosols from 1st July 1991. To a large extent that has already come about due to consumer pressure. However, a prohibition in law is still necessary. The consumer pressure has been particularly effective in the use of household and cosmetic aerosols. I have personal experience, for instance, that buying hairsprays without CFCs turned out to be slightly cheaper than buying those that contained CFCs. The consumers are not in the same position to pressurise fire extinguisher manufacturers or computer cleaning manufacturers as they are over the use of aerosols. It is therefore important that the Government take a hand. We all know that CFCs are also present in the coolant of refrigerators. That liquid can be easily sucked out. Some councils—very few—already do so. There are also some refrigerator companies, such as Bejam, who voluntarily collect their old refrigerators and deal with the CFCs in them.

I was interested to see a press release from the Department of the Environment issued on 29th January when Mr. David Trippier was present at the Runcorn headquarters of ICI. He launched the company's initiative to recycle chlorofluorocarbons. Under a new recycling scheme CFCs from scrap refrigerators will be removed by local authorities and other agencies and returned to ICI in cylinders for recycling or safe disposal. That is tremendously welcome. However, I still believe that we need legislation to make certain that all local councils are made responsible for ensuring that such collection is carried out by them. The cost of a piece of machinery to get rid of the CFCs in refrigerators is quite small —about £5,000. There is no reason why councils should not be forced by law to use the facilities that exist.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley said on 25th January 1989 about CFCs: The science is clear. The solutions are at hand and the cost is not prohibitive". It is for that reason that the Bill clearly states the time limits by which CFCs have to be phased out.

Clause 1(1)(d) deals with other ozone depleting substances, including methyl-chloroform, used in manufacturing processes, and states the time limit as 1st January 1993. The UK Government are resisting calls for a ban on methyl-chloroform and other Class 2 ozone depleters. The United States, the USSR, Holland and Australia all want action. Methyl-chloroform is thought to cause 16 per cent. of ozone depletion. The abolition of the use of methyl-chloroform would have an almost instantaneous effect on the stabilising of the ozone level. Methyl-chloroform remains in the atmosphere for only 15 years compared with over 100 years for CFCs. If that gas were dealt with, we should have gone a long way towards reducing the level of ozone depletion. The UK Government want a freeze at present levels and a review in 1994, which is much too late.

Subsection (2) of the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to make proposals in line with the timetables in Section 1 and to establish the penalties to be imposed on manufacturers and others who fail to comply with the timetable.

Subsection (3) makes provision for the proposals made under subsection (2) to be made by statutory instrument but provides that no such instrument shall come into force unless a draft thereof has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

Clause 2 establishes that the release into the atmosphere of CFCs used in refrigeration shall be an offence. Clause 3 makes provision that all items containing CFCs and other proven ozone-depleting substances be labelled as such. Clause 4 deals with the penalties to be imposed on persons who contravene the requirements in Clauses 2 and 3.

Clause 5 makes provision for the setting up by the Secretary of State of a committee independent of his department, including representatives of industry, consumers, scientific experts and anyone else he considers appropriate. This committee shall report on the facilities existing for the reprocessing, conservation and disposal of CFCs. He shall also advise on any incentives needed for the safe disposal of these substances and on any incentives needed to require the manufacturer to use alternatives to CFCs, whether in domestic, industrial or other equipment. This committee shall report as soon as it considers feasible. The report should be published in full and the Secretary of State should act upon its recommendations as soon as the committee considers practical.

In his speech in the debate on the greenhouse effect, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, at col. 230 of the Official Report of 29th January, stated in conclusion: However, governments cannot, before they act, wait until they can be more certain that science is giving the right answers. They must begin now to adopt insurance or what are called 'no regrets' policies, particularly to reduce emission of greenhouse gases. Those policies can be put into effect without causing drastic economic or social difficulties". About five minutes before I rose to my feet I was handed a letter from the Royal Society of Chemistry. It is a non-profit making organisation and charged by Royal Charter to act in the public interest. It states: The Society welcomes the opportunity occasioned by this Bill to discuss the issues that surround the use and disposal of CFCs. There is clearly a need for continuing scientific research on this issue. The Society particularly supports the provision for the establishment of a committee, with widespread representation including appropriate scientific expertise, to report on measures needed to require the safe disposal, conservation and recycling of CFCs and to report on alternatives to CFCs in domestic or industrial usage. The Society welcomes the research efforts being made by the chemical industry to discover and develop suitable alternatives". There is no reason why the timetables proposed in the Bill should not be implemented. For the sake of the future of the planet we should implement them. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Robson of Kiddington.)

7.41 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I support the intention of the Bill. When in September, 1987, the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer was signed by 25 participating countries, it was accepted as a considerable step forward. However, new scientific evidence soon made us realise that the protocol was not strong enough and that much more urgent action was needed.

Discussions are already taking place in advance of the second meeting in June, 1990, of the parties to the Montreal Protocol. It is widely believed that the new target to be discussed will be the complete phasing out of CFCs over 10 years instead of the present target of a 50 per cent. reduction. For reasons which I shall outline, it is likely that even that target will be improved upon.

Apart from their effect on the ozone layer, CFCs are now identified as one of the major contributors to the greenhouse effect, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness. The response to government exhortations and strongly-expressed public opinion has made our aerosol industry largely phase out its use of CFCs. I understand from the British Aerosol Manufacturers Association that only a few aerosols for industrial and medical applications are now in use. At the time when aerosols were in wide use that quantity was reckoned to be 10 per cent. of the whole. I do not know whether the percentage has decreased, but I know that what is now in use is only a small percentage of what it was.

BAMA was concerned about the time limit imposed on the Bill because it considered that it would make those uses impossible. It did not know what alternative would be available to it. Production of CFCs has already declined in this country as a result of the reduction in aerosol use and because new refrigerators use less of the gas than the older models. However, there is a problem with CFCs in refrigerators already in use, both domestic and commercial. While they remain in use all is well; they become a problem when they reach the end of their lives.

Until recently the facilities for recovering and recycling were sparse, as the noble Baroness said. Most discarded fridges found their way to the corporation tip —a source of pollution for the future —and many of them remain there. However, ICI has now launched a comprehensive recovery and recycling scheme. Given co-operation by the public, local authorities and industry, we should be able to contain the problem from now on. ICI has established a network of over 50 depots for recovered CFCs. They are recycled where possible, but when that is not possible they can be safely disposed of by the company.

Meanwhile, research has continued into alternatives for CFCs. During 1988 ICI announced a viable alternative. It is HFC134A and has survived further prolonged testing. Only yesterday I learnt from ICI that it anticipates full commercial production in January, 1991. I understand that it is a "world first" and that ICI is convinced that the problem of CFCs will rapidly diminish once the gas is in commercial production. The alternative gas is known as "Klea", which I understand is Greek for "green and verdant". It is possible that the future may prove it to be not so green and verdant, but for the moment we must take it as it is.

I am not given to optimism as regards environmental matters but I believe that we are on the verge of solving this particular problem. No doubt there will be others. Dr. Farman, the leading expert on ozone depletion at the British Antarctic Survey, wonders whether we should not adopt the precautionary principle for all new emissions into the atmosphere. Perhaps he is right. However, for the moment I believe that the noble Baroness can take heart, even if her Bill makes no further progress —and that is always a strong possibility with a Private Member's Bill of this kind —because the end that she seeks may well be in sight.

7.46 p.m.

The Earl of Liverpool

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for introducing the Bill and for the clear and precise way in which she has outlined its objectives. I have no doubt that we all share a deep concern about the manufacture of chlorofluorocarbons and the grave danger that they present to the ozone layer once released into the upper atmosphere. In my view, no effort should be spared to curtail and eliminate the use of CFCs, and that is why I welcome the Bill. However, the problem is global and the Bill seeks to legislate only for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as is within our power in this House.

The Montreal Protocol is doing excellent work in bringing together the nations of the world in recognising and solving the problems. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and having his reassurance about the continuing good work being carried out by the convention.

There is a lethal cocktail of carbon dioxide and chlorine gas in the upper atmosphere. Even if no more CFCs are released into the atmosphere there is already sufficient to cause depletion of the ozone layer for another 70 to 100 years.

Clause 5(1)(c) empowers the Secretary of State to establish a committee to report: on any incentives or measures needed to require the manufacture and use of alternatives to CFCs whether in domestic industrial or other equipment". That is the strongest aspect of the Bill and the one on which I wish to concentrate. We should give a clear lead. There is in this country a wealth of scientific talent. News of the ICI gas, Klea, is most encouraging but no effort should be spared to find an alternative ozone-friendly gas.

The developing countries of the world are entitled to expect so-called luxuries which we tend to take for granted; for example, refrigerators, deep freezers and air conditioning. There is no danger while those units are sealed and working correctly. Danger arises only when the gas escapes through damage or when the items have been scrapped.

It will be difficult enough to monitor our own market and give teeth to Clause 2 of the Bill, which makes it an offence to release CFCs into the atmosphere. I do not know how we can expect the developing countries to adopt a fail-safe way of ensuring that CFC gases will in all cases be extracted from refrigerators. I believe that it would be folly to expect that that could take place in developing countries. Therefore, the main effort must be to find a substitute benign gas before world trade in the refrigeration and air-conditioning market moves further ahead.

I believe that, little by little, time is running out. There is no doubt that past man-made mistakes have contributed to a great weakening in our ecosystems. We must act quickly to try to reverse the trend. I do not believe that we shall have a second chance. I welcome this Bill as representing a tangible step in the right direction. I hope that it will show a lead to the many other nations which are equally concerned with this problem.

7.50 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I am sure that all of us who badgered the Government before the Montreal Conference for dragging their feet are immensely grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this Bill. Like my noble friend Lady Nicol, I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly and shall give it all possible support. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, will proceed with it, not only because of the value of the Bill itself but also because if she does, there are certain amendments that I should like to move that I believe will strengthen its effect.

There are two issues that worry me which are not in the Bill but are omissions from it. First, as I read it at present, the force of the Bill is confined to this country. What is happening in the chemical world both here and in America, but particularly here, in the search for alternatives to appliances which use CFCs? As my noble friend mentioned, there has been a development of the new gas HFC134A. I am not as optimistic as my noble friend Lady Nicol about its benign quality. I hope that the Minister who is to reply for the Government can enlighten the House on that. I can only put forward what I have been told from the sources which have been researching into this matter. I am told that this new gas is 2,500 times more dangerous in its contribution to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. We cannot afford to concentrate on the abolition of one dangerous gas only to find that we have produced something even more dangerous or even equally as dangerous. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that for the House.

I also understand that the new gas is five times as expensive as the use of CFCs. If the Government believe in market forces, that is hardly a way to persuade people to substitute the new gases for CFCs.

I believe that the kernel of this issue is to be seen within what my noble friend Lady Nicol has explained as coming from ICI. Is it not the case that all the testing of these new gases is carried out by the companies and not by the Government and that commercial confidentiality comes into it? I particularly welcome the proposal in the Bill that an independent committee should be set up. I hope that it will look at such issues and not simply concentrate on the abolition of CFCs at all costs. That certainly requires a diminution of present day commercial confidentiality because here we are talking not about the profits and secrets of a company but about the future of mankind.

The second point which I should like to emphasise follows on from that. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that the greatest challenge to mankind for the next 50 years is to find the means by which the half of the world which is outside the market —the third world and developing countries —can reach at least a reasonable sustainable standard of living without following the bad example which we have set in poisoning the atmosphere and destroying the planet. That is a tremendous challenge.

My worry about the Bill is that is seems to confine itself to this country. I should like to see within it not just a prohibition on the use or emission of CFCs in this country but also on their production in this country for export. That might be implied in certain of the wording but it is not sufficiently specific to protect what I believe is the very vulnerable third world to which appliances will be exported from this country. After all, the United Kingdom today is the biggest exporter in the world of CFC gases. In 1988 it exported to 117 different countries.

It is surely our responsibility to ensure that this country does not export either appliances which contain CFCs or appliances which contain any other noxious gases. We must devote our research, particularly our chemical research, in this country to the development of environmentally benign technologies which will allow third world countries to advance their standard of living at least to a point at which they can sustain life but without going through the destructive uses to which we have put the industrial revolution.

With those observations and queries which I hope the Minister or perhaps the noble Baroness can clarify, I support the Bill although I believe that it can be strengthened. I hope that she will continue with the Bill in order that it can be strengthened in the ways in which I have indicated.

7.59 p.m.

Lord Addington

My Lords, the Bill probably strikes at the heart of the environmental debate. We are not only saying that we should do something but it gives us a timetable in which to do it. On these issues there has been an unfortunate tendency for people to say that something should be done but here we are saying that it should be done within a given period and what will happen if it is not done; in other words, we are setting ourselves a series of standards. There are not enough concrete suggestions and aims which we can fulfil. In the environmental sphere there is far too much talk and supposed good intentions. We must start taking more and more measures along these lines so that we have something at which to aim.

Once that point is made, I should like to say that the Bill fulfils that aim, in that it sets out a timetable in which we should get rid of these harmful gases. Once we have done that we can then pat ourselves on the back and say to those people in the developing world "We have done something with the technology that we have created which is part of the industrialisation you are trying to achieve for higher economic standards. Will you follow?" Once we have instituted the means to fulfil this regulation we will also be able to offer them the aid and the technical process for ensuring that they can follow.

Many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have pointed out the problem which runs the whole way through the environmental debate. We have set standards for economic growth and activity which require a degree of industrialisation. Industrialisation tends to be damaging to the environment. We struggled through industrialisation which meant that possibly we did irreparable damage to our domestic environment. It is worth remembering, for instance, that Europe became completely deforested long before we even considered the problems of the rain forests. We are asking people to do what we say and not what we do. We must be able to offer them help. On that score we must be prepared to offer them technical and also economic aid.

Thus it is vitally important—this brings me back to my initial point —that we ourselves set an example by ensuring that such measures as this are in law and also that we have the technical ability to help others achieve the same aim. On those points I believe the Bill should stand. After the speeches of other noble Lords in this debate, I think there is nothing left to be said.

8 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, this Bill has been welcomed by every speaker who has addressed the House this evening and I do not intend to break with that. I welcome the Bill; I welcome the thinking behind it and I welcome any attempt which is made to strengthen the provisions of the Montreal Protocol and the decisions which have been taken by this and other governments throughout the world to deal with the horrific problem of the depleting ozone layer.

As a number of noble Lords have rightly said, this is not simply a problem for this country. It is a world problem and it is a problem which increasing industrialisation and improving standards of living, particularly throughout the third world, will exacerbate. It is undoubtedly the case that people in third world countries will not be satisfied by what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly called "Do as I say and not as I do". We have carried out our industrialisation process for two centuries virtually regardless of the environment. Now, when we are sufficiently well off to afford both the research and the minor inconveniences of dealing with CFCs in aerosols, for example, we become pure and say to the third world, "You cannot have the refrigerators we have enjoyed even though your climate is very much worse in most cases". We tell them they will have to replace the gases used with a substance which, as my noble friend Lord Hatch says —I do not know the background to his figures but they sound convincing to me —will be more expensive than the existing gas used in refrigerators and may also be substantially more damaging to the ozone layer than CO2.

Therefore, it is clearly necessary for us to be pure, but that is not enough. The fundamental difficulty with this Bill is inevitable in the idea that it should be brought into British law; that it can apply only to the British Isles and not apply to any other country. Lying behind the admirable intention of the Bill is the determination and intention, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will confirm in winding up on behalf of the Government, to participate actively in world measures, global measures, to reduce ozone depleting substances. That is the crux of the matter and that is what will have the very real effect we need to slow down, let alone halt or reverse, the damage which is being done and has already been done to the ozone layer.

I have a number of detailed problems with regard to the drafting of the Bill, but they can be dealt with perfectly well in Committee. I have a difficulty about the meaning of the word "eliminate". Clause 1 sets timetables for the elimination of ozone-depleting substances in the manufacture of flexible foam. That I can very well understand, though I understand from the Royal Society of Chemistry that the alternatives presently available have the problem of not being as fire resistant as the flexible foam which is now used. There may be a problem in that direction with regard to the deadline which is proposed.

I understand what is meant by the elimination of CFCs in aerosols, though again we all understand from the aerosol manufacturer's association that 99 per cent. of aerosols produced in this country no longer have CFCs in them. The only problem that remains is with aerosols such as asthma inhalers and pain relieving sprays, for which no suitable substitute has yet been found.

I understand what is meant by the use of CFCs and ozone-depleting substances in solvents used in manufacturing processes. Again, I would only say that we are not yet clear as to the alternatives. That will need to be brought out more clearly in Committee. Despite that, there is a difficulty in the definition of what is meant by "elimination". Does it mean only the elimination of products manufactured in this country? Does it mean the elimination of imports and exports of products using ozone-depleting gases?

Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol proposes the elimination of exports of products using ozone-depleting substances by 1st January 1993. Is that included in the intention of the Bill? That could well be clarified when we deal with the Bill in Committee. Does that mean the elimination of emission into the atmosphere on scrapping? Article 2 makes it clear that that applies to CFCs; it is not clear whether it applies to other ozone-depleting substances. There may be improvements to be made in that direction.

I suggest that there is also a problem with the use of the phrase "other ozone-depleting substances". Unless the noble Baroness means to restrict those ozone-depleting substances to those controlled substances which are defined in the annex to the Montreal Protocol, it is a very wide phrase. A large number of things deplete the ozone layer other than those controlled substances. Reference has already been made to CO2 and chlorine gas. They are less ozone-depleting weight for weight —whatever the measure is —but there are far more of them around. Unless we intend to take action against CO2 as emitted by the internal combustion engine, for example, anything that we do with CFCs is relatively trivial. The problem of the ozone layer is much wider than the scope of this Bill if, as I think I am right in saying, the Bill proposes to cover only the controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol.

I do not criticise the intention of the Bill. I do not say it is not worth enacting, but there are many more things which have to be done if we are to tackle this problem. As all noble Lords have said, notably my noble friends Lord Hatch and Lady Nicol, this is a world problem. It is the intention of the Government to participate actively in tackling the world problem with the contribution of resources from this country, and that is the real test.

8.10 p.m.

Lord Reay

My Lords, this Bill addresses itself to a subject of vital importance. Without the ozone layer we would suffer a greatly increased incidence of skin cancer and eye disorders. There would probably be damage to the immune system, increased disease in animals, reduced crop yields and damage to the plankton at the bottom of the food chain. As yet, the massive depletion which we see each spring over Antarctica (the ozone hole) does not appear elsewhere. However, it is caused by CFCs, halons and methyl chloroform and could appear elsewhere if we continue to use these chemicals as we have in the past.

Moreover, the chemicals which damage the ozone layer also contribute to the greenhouse effect. So what we do to protect the ozone layer does help to reduce the prospect of global warming. We cannot protect the ozone above our heads by limiting only our own use of CFCs. The effect of emissions is worldwide, wherever they take place. For this reason, the Government's policies are overwhelmingly directed towards achieving a global response to what is a global problem. Action by one country is of relatively little effect.

In the international sphere we have a leading position which we are determined to maintain. It was British scientists, in the British Antarctic Survey, who first discovered the Antarctic ozone hole. We played an important part in the negotiation of the Vienna Convention, and the Montreal Protocol, which limits the production and consumption of CFCs and halons. Soon after the protocol was agreed, however, we received scientific confirmation that the ozone hole was caused by CFCs, and that more general ozone depletion over the northern hemisphere was also taking place. We immediately accepted the need for a much stronger protocol, and we ensured that the European Community took a firm and early stand, pledging a phase-out of CFCs by the end of the century.

The Saving the Ozone Layer conference, which we hosted in London last March, in partnership with the United Nations' environment programme, was a great success. One hundred and twenty-three countries attended and 85 of them sent Ministers. They all agreed, for the first time in an international forum, that CFCs would have to be phased out entirely.

That message has taken root. The Montreal Protocol is now due for revision, and negotiations are taking place aimed at a considerable strengthening of its provisions. We expect these changes to be adopted at the second meeting of the Montreal Protocol parties, which we will host here in London in June. There is general agreement that CFCs should be phased out, at least in the developed countries, by the year 2000. In the negotiations the European Community is calling for faster reductions than any other participant. Its position is based on our own proposals. The EC proposals call for a 50 per cent. reduction in 1986 levels of CFC production and consumption by July of next year, an 85 per cent. reduction by July 1995, and a complete phase-out by the beginning of the year 2000. The Bill before us asks the Secretary of State to propose a timetable for the total elimination of CFCs by 1995. However, we believe that our proposals go as far as is practicable in present circumstances and perhaps I can explain why.

Many CFC uses can be ended by using existing technologies in new ways. We believe that British industry has already reduced its use of CFCs by 50 per cent. by such means, even though that is not required by the existing protocol until 1999. However, there are other uses, particularly in refrigeration, medical and some industrial aerosols, and rigid polyurethane foams, which will need new substitute chemicals currently being developed by the chemical manufacturers.

Progress on these chemicals is good, but their introduction is not a quick process. Investment in production facilities cannot be made until we are sure that the new chemicals can do the job, and until we are sure that they are better than CFCs for the environment. Perhaps the lengthiest aspect of their development is adequate toxicity testing; namely, making sure they are safe for human beings to use. Some of these new chemicals will be available by the 1995 date provided for in the Bill, but others will not. And for some applications, particularly in the medical field, proper toxicity testing and certification will take us close to the end of the century. It is for these reasons that our own proposals for the elimination of CFCs use do not go as fast as those set out in the Bill.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have listened very carefully to his explanation of why the timetable proposed in the Bill is thought to be impracticable. Can he answer the point made by the noble Baroness. Lady Robson, as to why Sweden has been able to improve on it? Can the Minister say what it is that the Swedes have discovered, apart from social democracy, which makes them so much better at this issue than us?

Lord Reay

My Lords, I cannot answer for the situation in Sweden. We have to negotiate within the context of the European Community and together we have to reach a co-ordinated position.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful for that answer. The noble Lord should have been able to answer the question because it is well known that Sweden has an earlier deadline. If the noble Lord cannot answer now will he be good enough to write to me and to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, with the information that is required?

Lord Reay

My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance that I shall write to him on that matter. As well as the overall elimination of CFCs the Bill provides for faster timetables to eliminate their use in particular areas of application; namely, by July 1991 in the case of flexible foam and aerosols, and by January 1993 when used as a solvent.

Our approach, and the approach of many governments around the world, is to limit the overall production and supply of these chemicals, and to let industry get on with the job of finding substitutes. If we felt that they were failing to put in the necessary effort to do so, we would certainly want to consider legislation against particular uses. But so far, all the evidence is that industry is falling over itself to stop using ozone damaging substances. Almost all aerosol production has now been converted away from using CFCs. The manufacturers of flexible foam also expect to stop using CFCs by the end of 1993.

The Government's approach of limiting overall supply is followed in the Montreal Protocol and in the European legislation which implements it in the community. Within that framework, the European Commission is negotiating voluntary agreements with different sectors of industry to seek to ensure that they abandon CFCs as quickly as they can. These agreements can cover a range of measures more effectively than legislation could provide for. They channel industry's efforts into co-operative action to achieve the quickest possible results, rather than coerce them with rigid legislative deadlines. The knowledge that supply is disappearing provides the background incentive for all sectors of industry to move away from CFCs as quickly as they can.

The Bill requires the elimination of CFCs and methyl chloroform used as solvents by 1993. Again, the Government cannot judge precisely when they can safely be replaced in each application. Solvent users will be constrained by the limitations placed on the overall supply of CFCs. The supply of methyl chloroform must also be reduced, and we will argue to that effect in the renegotiation of the Montreal Protocol.

The Bill requires that the release of CFC refrigerants into the atmosphere should be an offence. It is important that those who deal with refrigeration equipment should act responsibly, and ensure that refrigerant is returned for recycling or safe destruction. However, we believe that this is best encouraged by incentive rather than legislation. CFC refrigerants are colourless and odourless gases, which would make legislation difficult to enforce. The incentive is provided by the reduction and elimination of CFC production in that eventually the only material available for maintaining equipment using CFCs, will be that which is recycled from old refrigerant.

The demand from consumers that companies act responsibly has resulted in supermarket chains leading the way in responding to this need. Local authorities and retailers alike are starting to respond to the public demand that old fridges and freezers are drained of refrigerant before going for scrap.

Last week my honourable friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside launched a new nationwide service to recycle refrigerant from domestic appliances, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred. Every retailer, and every local authority, will now be able to get advice on how to collect the CFCs from old machines, and will be able to use ICI's containers and its national network of distribution centres, to return the refrigerant for recycling. This splendid initiative is wholly commendable and demonstrates the private sector's constructive response, without the need for specific legislation.

The Bill also calls on the Secretary of State to establish a committee to report on the whole question of recycling and disposal of CFCs and other ozone depleting substances. In fact the Department of Trade and Industry has already commissioned consultants, with very similar terms of reference. The Government will consider what further measures may be necessary in the light of their report.

Finally, the Bill would require products containing CFCs to be labelled as such. As noble Lords may be aware, last August the Government issued a consultation paper on the question of environmental labelling of all products. The consultation showed widespread support for a Europe-wide voluntary scheme which manufacturers can use if they can show that their products are friendly to the environment, taking into account their whole lifetime from manufacture through use to ultimate disposal.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has proposed such a scheme in the European Community Environment Council and, as a result, we understand that proposals from the Commission are imminent. This will go much wider than CFCs, and will offer consumers the ability to choose products which are made with due regard for the environment as a whole. It is useful to know that a refrigerator has been tested as energy efficient, is easy to recycle, and contains a minimum of CFCs.

The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, asked about the new gas HFC134A. I understand that this is to replace CFC12. It contributes to the greenhouse effect only 10 per cent. of the damage done by CFC12 and it does no damage to the ozone layer. The noble Lord also asked me about the testing of new gases. This is done and paid for by the companies themselves but they have to inform the authorities about the results. I also understand that the world's chemical companies are co-operating and pooling their results on toxicity and safety testing.

In conclusion, I should like to say how much I welcome the opportunities for debate provided by the Bill. We applaud the intentions behind the Bill and we agree that the present Montreal Protocol is quite inadequate. It is true that to some extent the Bill and the Government address the problem in different ways. In some areas this is because we are a little less optimistic about the speed at which new substitutes can be introduced. In others it is because we are taking action in a broader context and our policy for protecting the ozone layer forms part of that action. Our prime concern is that nothing should inhibit our full participation in the international agreement which is essential for any resolution to this problem. I am sure that noble Lords will wish the Government every success in their efforts to secure a truly effective global response when they host the second meeting of the Montreal Protocol parties in June.

Baroness Robson of Kiddington

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and all other noble Lords who contributed to the debate. Of course we wish the Government every success in hosting the conference in June. There is no difference between the Government's response and what I am trying to do in the Bill. There is no reason at all why a country on its own should not take the kind of action that Sweden has taken. Noble Lords have said that it is a world problem and that what one country does has little effect. But it has some effect. We together create the enormous effect. Every country that withdraws and sets a timetable will help in regard to ozone depletion.

We hear about the difficulties of setting timetables because we are not yet quite certain when alternative substances will be available. We are all quite sure that an enormous amount of work is being done on these alternative substances. But I have learnt throughout my life that to have a time limit on something concentrates the mind beautifully. One manages to put in more effort and one achieves the results sooner. We have to start somewhere. I believe that we should start with our own country, so that when we go to international conferences we can say: we have done it, we have set an example, we have taken action. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.