Paris Commission (Hansard, 30 June 1993)

§ Mr. Yeo

The following list shows the outcome on the proposals for decisions and recommendations considered at the 15th joint meeting of the Oslo and Paris commissions, held in Berlin from 14 to 19 June, and the position adopted by the United Kingdom on them:

a. Recommendation concerning the limitation of pollution from existing primary iron and steel production installations (PARCOM recommendation 93/1): adopted by a three-quarters majority—Belgium, Portugal and Spain entered reservations—the United Kingdom accepted this recommendation;b. Decision on the phasing-out of the use of hexachloroethane in the non-ferrous metal industry (PARCOM decision 93/1): adopted by a three-quarters majority—Germany and the United Kingdom entered reservations, as did the Commission of the European Communities—the United Kingdom reservation is because we have not completed the assessment of the cost of complying with the decision;c. Recommendation for the reduction of marine pollution originating from the phosphate fertiliser industry: not adopted; the United Kingdom did not support this recommendation because it was insufficiently developed and would increase pressure to transfer the production concerned to areas discharging into seas outside the Paris Commission area;d. Recommendation for further restrictions on the use and discharge of mercury: not adopted in its original form, because the part dealing with the imposing of a ban on the import of arm and leg shock-absorber hands containing mercury required clarification of the powers of EC member states to impose such a ban in the absence of Community action; a received Recommendation on fin-flier restrictions on the discharge of mercury from dentistry (PARCOM recommendation 93/2) was adopted by a three-quarters majority—France, Portugal and Spain entered reservations—the United Kingdom accepted this recommendation;e. Recommendation on the elaboration of national action plans and best environmental practice for the reduction of inputs to the environment of pesticides from agricultural use (PARCOM recommendation 93/3): adopted by a three-quarters majority—France and Portugal entered reservations—the United Kingdom supported this recommendation;f. Recommendation on the phasing out of cationic detergents DTDMAC. DSDMAC and DHTDMAC in fabric softeners (PARCOM recommendation 93/4): adopted by a three-quarters majority—the United Kingdom entered a reservation—the United Kingdom reservation was because the evidence that available substitutes are less environmentally hazardous is not available except to the firms that have developed them, and because formal action is unnecessary, given the 90 per cent reduction in usage in recent years;g. Recommendation on the reduction of nutrients from agriculture: not adopted, only two countries supporting it; the United Kingdom did not support it, because it would have required unnecessary action by the United Kingdom;h. Decision on the phasing-out of short-chained chlorinated paraffinsnot adopted; the United Kingdom did not support this decision because we have not completed the assessment of the cost of complying with the decision;i. Recommendation concerning increases in radioactive discharges from nuclear reprocessing plants: this proposal, tabled by Denmark, was not presented;j. Recommendation on the total level of radioactive discharges into the maritime area: this proposal, tabled by the Republic of Ireland, was not presented;522Wk. Recommendation concerning increases in radioactive discharges from nuclear reprocessing plants: this joint proposal from Denmark and the Republic of Ireland was not adopted—Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom had reservations, as did the Commission of the European Cornmunities—a revised Recommendation concerning increases in radioactive discharges.from nuclear reprocessing plants (PARCOM recommendation 93/5) was adopted by a three-quarters majority—Belgium, France and the United Kingdom entered reservations, as did the Commission of the European Communities—the—United Kingdom reservation was because the first limb of the recommendation made no progress beyond the commitment in the 1992 action plan, while the second limb both was too vague to provide a proper basis for a PARCOM recommendation and, insofar as it provided for a role for the Paris Commission in the decision process, was inappropriate.

The acceptance by Belgium of decisions and recommendations was ad referendum, pending the completion of internal procedures; where the adoption of a measure depending on Belgian acceptance, therefore, that adoption is provisional pending confirmation of the Belgian position. PARCOM decisions bind those contracting parties which vote for them or subsequently accept them; PARCOM recommendations have no binding force.