How the EU gives us Power to Tackle Environmental Problems

Speech by Chris Huhne MEP delivered to the Aylesbury Liberal Democrats Great Missenden Green Fair Opening on Sat 1st Feb 2003

It is a great pleasure to open this green fair here today for so many reasons. First, this is a great theme. I wish there were more green fairs, and a greater awareness of the crucial importance of holding in trust for future generations the planet on which we live. Secondly, I am always delighted to come to the Chilterns, which is one of the most beautiful parts of the whole region that I represent. Thirdly, I have a family connection here since my grandfather lived in this village, and in nearby villages, for most of his life. This area therefore brings back happy memories of days that were rather more sun-drenched than I fear I can promise you in the bleak mid-winter today.

It is also, if I may say so, rather sensible of Peter Jones and the organisers of this excellent event to ask a Euro-MP to launch this fair. According to the chairman of our environment committee in the European Parliament, who is a British MEP of the threatened sensible minority within the Conservative party, some 80 per cent of the UK's environmental legislation now originates in Brussels as a directive or regulation agreed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Indeed, environmental law is perhaps one of the most successful parts of EU legislation.

But before you are misled into believing that this is an example of Brussels over-reaching itself into legal nooks and crannies that should be national, let me say that I am a firm believer in the principle that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people affected by them. That is a long-standing Liberal case. However, the case for environmental legislation at an EU level is a particularly strong one.

After all, so many environmental issues are clearly trans-national in their scope. Our dirty seawater today could be France's tomorrow. Our polluted air yesterday is Denmark's today. Take the case of Acid rain. If we pass a law banning sulphur emissions from UK power stations, that is of great benefit to the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes whose problem with Acid rain will thereby diminish.

But it does not help us. It will not stop the acid rain that corrodes the local sandstone in these parts, and causes such concern to those who care for our heritage of listed buildings. If we want to curb UK acid rain, we need a law that stops sulphur emissions in France and Spain, as the prevailing winds bring those emissions across the channel to us. And Westminster does not have the power to pass Spanish or French law. However, the EU does: together we can tackle a problem that is outside the scope of national legislatures. Far from losing power to Brussels, Brussels gives us power to tackle a problem that would otherwise be untouchable. So the EU has been active in programmes to curb air and water pollution.

There is a second aspect of our environmental work, which is that sometimes each country wants to impose sensible environmental standards, but it knows that if it does so on its own, its businesses would be put at an intolerable disadvantage. An example here is the End of Life Vehicle Directive: this is designed to ensure that cars are properly scrapped by having all the pollutants taken out of them. The battery acid, used oil in the sump, brake fluids and washer liquid must all be taken out in case they otherwise sink into the soil and pollute table water. But any one EU country that insisted that its carmakers should bear the cost of so doing would immediately find its production shifting to an EU member that imposed no such cost. The solution? A directive that from 2006 puts the cost of scrapping a car onto its maker right across the EU.

As always, there is a transition to allow industry to get used to this new state of affairs, and unfortunately the British government has developed transitional provisions that make no sense at all. Unlike other EU countries, we are insisting that the final user of the car pays the £80 to £100 cost of scrapping it. This is wholly unrealistic since in most cases the owners are unable to pay such a sum easily. I owned an old banger when I was a student, and was least able to afford the cost of scrapping it. Instead, there will be a wave of reported car thefts, and large numbers of old bangers left rotting by the roadside. Only a handful of people who dump old cars are ever pursued. But that is not to undermine the objectives of the legislation, which are perfectly sound. It is simply to argue that the Government should use the flexibility which it has when transposing the objectives of the legislation into detailed UK law. Instead, governments and civil servants are far too inclined to adopt unworkable solutions that push the potential costs onto other people (in this case local councils), and then to blame Brussels for their imbroglio.

This is exactly what happened with the directive to ensure that old refrigerators, when broken up, do not release chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere. Michael Meacher, the minister who agreed the directive, completely failed to ensure that there were adequate means in Britain to abide by its objectives. We simply did not have the fridge-munching machinery that so efficiently dispatched such fridges in Germany. The result has been a pile-up of old fridges as we await the arrival of the spanking new fridge munchers. I can take you to parts of this region - notably a large field in Havant - which is now the not so proud repository of a crop of old kitchen coolers thanks to government ministers whose chief motto in these EU environmental matters appears to be 'Always surprised'.

Let me finally mention a third element where I believe the European Union plays an important part in pushing for a more sustainable world, and that is on the international stage. The application of the EU's directives on environment is already dramatically raising the standards of air and water cleanliness in the new candidate countries due to be admitted in May 2004. The second international impact is on the key partners with whom we trade. While the United States administration is still in awe of big oil, Britain and our EU partners have gone ahead and ratified the Kyoto protocol on global warming greenhouse gases. As we find in the trade area, when we speak together, we are far more effective than when we are divided.

There is so much to do to protect our environment and ensure that we have a sustainable future. What we have done so far is certainly not enough, particularly in the crucial area of global warming. However, the European Union has made real progress in implementing a common environmental policy and it is generally far more united on these issues than on some others that we might mention, such as Iraq. That is an achievement, but it is also one that is not recognised enough through the EU countries. In this area, the EU gives us in Britain a way of tackling problems that otherwise we would be powerless to tackle.