house of lords merits of statutory instruments committee ... · merits of statutory instruments...

9
HOUSE OF LORDS Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee 25th Report of Session 2006-07 Drawing special attention to: Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 Secure Training Centre (Amendment) Rules 2007 Ordered to be printed 26 June and published 28 June 2007 London : The Stationery Office Limited £price HL Paper 133

Upload: vohanh

Post on 07-May-2018

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: HOUSE OF LORDS Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee ... · Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee 25th Report of ... every proposal which is in the form of a draft of

HOUSE OF LORDS

Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee

25th Report of Session 2006-07

Drawing special attention to: Motor Fuel (Composition and Content)

(Amendment) Regulations 2007

Secure Training Centre (Amendment) Rules 2007

Ordered to be printed 26 June and published 28 June 2007

London : The Stationery Office Limited £price

HL Paper 133

Page 2: HOUSE OF LORDS Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee ... · Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee 25th Report of ... every proposal which is in the form of a draft of

The Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments The Committee has the following terms of reference:

(1) The Committee shall, subject to the exceptions in paragraph (2), consider— (a) every instrument (whether or not a statutory instrument), or draft of an

instrument, which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be, or might have been, taken in either House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament;

(b) every proposal which is in the form of a draft of such an instrument and is laid before each House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament,

with a view to determining whether or not the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (3).

(2) The exceptions are— (a) Orders in Council, and draft Orders in Council, under paragraph 1 of the

Schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000; (b) remedial orders, and draft remedial orders, under section 10 of the Human Rights

Act 1998; (c) draft orders (including draft subordinate provisions orders) under section 1 of the

Regulatory Reform Act 2001, subordinate provisions orders under that Act and proposals in the form of a draft order under that Act;

(d) Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made, and drafts of instruments to be made, under them.

(3) The grounds on which an instrument, draft or proposal may be drawn to the special attention of the House are—

(a) that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House;

(b) that it may be inappropriate in view of changed circumstances since the enactment of the parent Act;

(c) that it may inappropriately implement European Union legislation; (d) that it may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives.

(4) The Committee shall also consider such other general matters relating to the effective scrutiny of the merits of statutory instruments and arising from the performance of its functions under paragraphs (1) to (3) as the Committee considers appropriate, except matters within the orders of reference of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Current Membership The Members of the Committee are: Baroness Adams of Craigielea Lord Armstrong of Ilminster Viscount Colville of Culross Baroness Deech

Viscount Eccles Lord Filkin (Chairman) Lord James of Blackheath Lord Jopling

Baroness Maddock Baroness Thomas of Winchester Lord Tunnicliffe

Registered Interests Members’ registered interests may be examined in the online Register of Lords’ Interests at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg.htm. The Register may also be inspected in the House of Lords Record Office and is available for purchase from the Stationery Office.

Publications The Committee’s Reports are published by the Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee are on the internet at: www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/merits.cfm

Contacts If you have any queries about the Committee and its work, please contact the Clerk of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, Delegated Legislation Office, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW; telephone 020-7219 8821; facsimile 020-7219 2571; email [email protected]. The Committee’s website, www.parliament.uk, has guidance for the public on how to contact the Committee if you have a concern or opinion about any new item of secondary legislation.

Page 3: HOUSE OF LORDS Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee ... · Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee 25th Report of ... every proposal which is in the form of a draft of

Twenty-fifth Report

INSTRUMENTS REPORTED

The Committee has considered the following instruments and has determined that the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on the grounds specified.

A. Motor Fuels (Composition and Content) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1608)

Summary: These Regulations implement a EU Directive which requires changes to super-unleaded fuel to decrease its sulphur content. This will help the environment by reducing the amount of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) by 3.0ktonne and airborne particulate matter (PM) by 0.2 ktonne, saving the monetarised equivalent of £11 -16m. Due however to the increased energy used in processing the fuel, the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) released will increase significantly, the estimate being in the range 53.82Mt - 371.9 Mt CO2 (equivalent to £16 - £112 m in monetarised terms). This outcome seems perverse in legislation designed to help the environment. The Department are optimistic that the imbalance will be rectified within a few years. The House may also wish to note why the Department have not asked the European Commission to defer implementation of the Directive until the advanced engine technology which this measure is designed to complement is more widely available.

These Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that they may imperfectly achieve their policy objectives.

1. The Department for Transport (DfT) have laid these Regulations under sections 30 and 63 of the Clean Air Act 1993 together with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM), a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) and a Transposition Note (TN).

2. Those parts of Directive 2003/17/EC that require all petrol and diesel fuel to have a maximum sulphur content of 10mg/kg or less (“sulphur-free fuel”) from 1 January 2009 have already been transposed by the Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/3078). These amending Regulations implement a requirement in Directive 2003/17/EC that Member States take measures to ensure the availability of sulphur-free petrol and diesel on a balanced geographical basis in advance of 2009.

3. It was originally intended to implement the requirement for balanced geographical availability by fuel duty incentives, but HM Revenue and Customs eventually ruled this out due to continued volatility in oil prices. Consultation with the industry demonstrated that there was no will to implement the provisions voluntarily and legislation was therefore left as the only option.

4. These Regulations require all diesel fuel and super unleaded petrol (which represents about 4% of the market) sold by filling stations with an annual combined throughput of diesel fuel and petrol of 3 million litres or more, to be sulphur-free. Sulphur-free fuels enable optimisation of new petrol engine

Page 4: HOUSE OF LORDS Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee ... · Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee 25th Report of ... every proposal which is in the form of a draft of

2 MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE

technology (Petrol Direct Injection, PDI) for maximum fuel economy and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions savings. The new fuels will be completely interchangeable with current fuels without any detrimental effects to the operability of current road vehicles and machinery and may improve the efficiency of certain catalysts in existing vehicles, improving their oxides of nitrogen (NOx) conversion efficiency and thus achieving (small) reductions in the NOx emissions and sulphate fraction of diesel particulate emissions.

5. Part of the intention of the Directive was to accelerate the marketing of PDI vehicles. This would deliver CO2 savings as, even when running on higher sulphur fuels, these vehicles emit less CO2 than conventional petrol vehicles. However, the EU market penetration of PDI vehicles has been far lower than expected when the Directive was agreed, in part due to the cost and complexity of the technology. Regulating for early availability of sulphur-free fuel is unlikely to bring about a more rapid roll-out of PDI vehicles and the expected reduction in tailpipe CO2 emissions is in consequence likely to be small. However, the refining of sulphur-free fuels is more energy intensive, so these small efficiency gains need to be set against an increase in refinery CO2 emissions.

6. The change will benefit the environment by reducing the amount of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) by 3.0ktonne and airborne particulate matter (PM) by 0.2 ktonne (overall saving the monetarised equivalent of £11 -16m). Due, however, to the increased energy being used in processing the fuel, the levels of CO2 released will increase significantly, the estimate being in the range 53.82Mt - 371.9 Mt CO2 (equivalent to £16 - £112 m in monetarised terms)1. Although it correctly implements the EU Directive, this outcome seems perverse in legislation designed to improve the environment. Correspondence from the Department is optimistic that the imbalance will be rectified within a few years; the correspondence is printed at the Appendix. The House may also wish to note the Government’s reasons why they have not asked the European Commission to defer the implementation of the Directive until the offsetting benefits of the advanced engine technology, which this measure is designed to complement, are more widely available.

B. Secure Training Centre (Amendment) Rules 2007 (SI 2007/1709)

Summary: These amendments will permit a trainee in a secure training centre to be removed from association with other trainees, or permit physical restraint to be used, to ensure good order and discipline where no alternative method of achieving those purposes is available. The amendments follow comments made by the Coroner in the case of Adam Rickwood, who committed suicide at a Secure Training Centre after being restrained. They clarify existing policy and make sure that the Rules are now fully consistent with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

These Rules are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.

1 The increase due to these regulations is only incurred in the period December 2007 to 1 January 2009: the

same problem will continue after that date but will be attributable to the earlier set of regulations (SI 2003/3078).

Page 5: HOUSE OF LORDS Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee ... · Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee 25th Report of ... every proposal which is in the form of a draft of

MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE 3

7. The Ministry of Justice have laid these Rules under section 47 of the Prison Act 1952 and section 7 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 together with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM).

8. Secure training centres accommodate young offenders aged 12 to 17 who are serving a custodial sentence under section 90, 91 or 100 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000; as well as some young people who have been remanded to the care of a local authority with a requirement that they be kept in secure conditions. Four centres are now in operation, all of which are contracted out.

9. These Rules amend Rule 36 of the Secure Training Centre Rules 1998 (“the 1998 Rules”), which provides for a trainee to be removed from association with other trainees in the interests of preventing him from causing significant harm to himself or to any other person or significant damage to property. They also amend Rule 38, which prescribes the purposes for which a custody officer at a secure training centre may physically restrain a trainee, where no alternative method of achieving those purposes is available. The amendment will enable a trainee to be removed from association in the interests of good order and discipline; and permit physical restraint to be used to ensure good order and discipline.

10. Following comments made by the Coroner in the case of Adam Rickwood, who committed suicide at one of these Centres after being restrained in this way, the amendment clarifies the existing policy and makes sure that the Rules are now fully consistent with the 1994 Act.

OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF INTEREST

11. Responding to concerns expressed in both Houses, the Department for Transport have laid draft Alterations to the provisions of rules 61 and 63 of the Highway Code. These alterations clarify that the advice to cyclists on the use of cycle facilities and cycle lanes is not compulsory.

12. The Health and Safety (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1672) amend the current charging regime to allow the Health and Safety Executive to recover its costs from assessing design proposals for new nuclear installations that are not linked to a specific licensed nuclear site. This will enable HSE to consider the generic designs being put forward in anticipation of an expansion in the number of nuclear power stations; they currently expect three such designs to be submitted.

13. The Spreadable Fats (Marketing Standards) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1615) plug a gap caused by a change in the title of the EU Regulations to which they refer. As a result Trading Standards Officers have been unable to enforce the Regulations for the labelling and fat content of butter-like spreads for two months. Although the real-world impacts are likely to be small in this case, such transitions should be better managed.

Page 6: HOUSE OF LORDS Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee ... · Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee 25th Report of ... every proposal which is in the form of a draft of

4 MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE

INSTRUMENTS NOT REPORTED

The Committee has considered the instruments set out below and has determined that the special attention of the House need not be drawn to them.

Draft Instrument requiring affirmative approval Community Order (Review by Specified Courts) Order 2007

Instruments subject to annulment SI 2007/1613 Personal Injuries (NHS Charges) (Reviews and Appeals)

Amendment Regulations 2007 SI 2007/1615 Spreadable Fats (Marketing Standards) (England)

(Amendment) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/1619 Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (War Pension

Disregards) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/1624 Health Protection Agency (Amendment) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/1625 Register of Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes

(Amendment) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/1626 Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2)

Regulations 2007 SI 2007/1629 Education (Mandatory Awards) (Amendment) Regulations

2007 SI 2007/1630 Education (Student Loans) (Amendment) (England and

Wales) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/1631 Addition of Vitamins, Minerals and Other Substances

(England) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/1632 Social Security (Students and Income-related Benefits)

Amendment Regulations 2007 SI 2007/1671 Financial Assistance for Environmental Purposes Order 2007 SI 2007/1672 Health and Safety (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/1684 Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults and Care

Standards Tribunal (Amendment) Regulations 2007 Draft Alterations to the provisions of rules 61 and 63 of the

Highway Code Statute made by the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the

University of Cambridge on 29 January 2007 Statute made by Kings College, Cambridge on 12 March

2007

Page 7: HOUSE OF LORDS Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee ... · Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee 25th Report of ... every proposal which is in the form of a draft of

MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE 5

APPENDIX: CORRESPONDENCE (SI 2007/1608)

Motor Fuels (Composition and Content) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1608)

Letter from the Chairman to Stephen Ladyman MP, Minister of State, Department for Transport

I am writing as Chairman of the Lords Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments. Yesterday the Committee gave preliminary consideration to the Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) (Amendment) Regulations (SI 2007/1608). Although we note and commend the extensive consultation process and the attempts to achieve the objective by a means other than regulation (viz section 7 of the Explanatory Memorandum), we were puzzled by the effect of these Regulations.

The Regulations correctly implement an EU Directive which requires changes to super unleaded fuel to decrease the sulphur content. The Regulatory Impact Assessment informs us that this will benefit the Environment by reducing the amount of oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) by 3.0ktonne and airborne particulate matter (PM) by 0.2 ktonne (overall saving the monetarised equivalent of £11 -16m). However due to the increased energy being used in processing the fuel the levels of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) released will increase significantly, the estimate being in the range 53.82Mt - 371.9 Mt CO2 (equivalent to £16 - £112 m in monetarised terms). This represents a significant overall increase in emissions which seems perverse in legislation designed to improve the environment.

We understand that the Directive was promulgated on the basis that it would encourage the use of Petrol Direct Injection engines but that the market for such cars has not progressed as anticipated. Could you please clarify the reasons for this?

We assume that other Member States are experiencing similar difficulties and would like to know why the Department has not asked the European Commission to defer the implementation of the Directive until the advanced engine technology which this measure is designed to complement is more widely available or the net outcome to the environment will be less damaging.

We are currently minded to draw this instrument to the special attention of the House but before reaching a final view, the Committee would welcome further explanation on the points set out above.

20 June 2007

Letter from Stephen Ladyman MP, Minister of State, Department for Transport, to the Chairman

Thank you for your letter of 20 June about the above regulations. You raise concerns about the impact of the regulations on CO2 emissions.

As you know the regulations implement aspects of EU Directive 2003/17/EC. Some background to this Directive may be useful to understand the current situation. The main driver for sulphur-free petrol was to enable maximum CO2 savings on lean burn Petrol Direct Injection vehicles. Sulphur-free diesel offers CO2 benefits on Diesel Particulate Filter equipped vehicles and enables certain local pollutant emissions control technologies. The Commission originally proposed that sulphur-free petrol and diesel should be available from the beginning of 2005 and that all road fuel should be sulphur-free by 2011. In making this proposal they noted that a staged introduction was necessary in

Page 8: HOUSE OF LORDS Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee ... · Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee 25th Report of ... every proposal which is in the form of a draft of

6 MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE

order to avoid refinery CO2 impacts outweighing vehicle CO2 and air quality emissions benefits, while new technology vehicles were still being introduced into the market.

Several Member States and the European Parliament wanted the proposed dates brought forward by up to 4 years. The UK did not support this since our analysis suggested that this would result in increased CO2 emissions in the short term. The 2005 (availability) and 2009 (full market penetration) dates finally agreed represented a compromise between the various parties.

As you know, contrary to expectations, Petrol Direct Injection vehicles have not yet achieved significant market penetration. This is largely due to the costs of this technology and the fact that the fuel economy benefits delivered on the vehicles that were brought to market were lower than expected. Consequently consumer uptake was limited and most manufacturers did not roll out the technology across many models. However vehicle manufacturers and independent technical consultants still expect petrol direct injection engines to be commonplace in the next generation of vehicle models.

In implementing the Directive’s requirement that sulphur-free fuel be made available we have taken account of the limited availability of Petrol Direct Injection vehicles and we only sought to switch Super grade petrol (4.5% of petrol sales) to sulphur-free. This limits the increase in refinery CO2 emissions to very low levels. The majority (95-97%) of the increased refinery emissions estimated in our RIA is in fact due to sulphur-free diesel. Unfortunately the UK fuel distribution network can only accommodate a single grade of diesel. Consequently it is not economically viable to make sulphur-free diesel available in small quantities alongside existing ultra-low sulphur diesel. To put the CO2 increase in context I should point out that it equates to only 0.04 - 0.3% of UK road transport emissions and, as noted in the RIA, we are confident that the actual figure will be towards the bottom end of this range.

You question why the Department has not raised the issue of increased CO2 emissions with the European Commission and sought a delay to the implementation dates in the Directive. In fact the Commission were already tasked with reviewing this under Article 9(1)(a) of the Directive. This obliges them to review the implementation date for sulphur-free diesel specifically in order to avoid an overall increase in CO2 emissions. The Commission’s recent Impact Assessment (SEC(2007) 55) includes such a review, concluding that there was no reason to delay the dates. Key factors in reaching this conclusion were the air quality benefits brought about by sulphur-free diesel, the anticipation that it will deliver CO2 savings on Diesel Particulate Filter equipped vehicles (which will become commonplace from 2009) and the fact that refinery CO2 increases now appear to be lower than originally anticipated. They also felt that a chicken and egg situation existed, with automotive manufacturers being reluctant to bring new technology vehicles to market until sulphur-free fuel was available to enable optimisation of fuel economy.

In practice, to delay the implementation dates, the Commission would have to come forward with a proposal to the European Council and Parliament, which would take up to 2 years to negotiate and a further year to transpose.

Page 9: HOUSE OF LORDS Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee ... · Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee 25th Report of ... every proposal which is in the form of a draft of

MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE 7

By the time this could be achieved Diesel Particulate Filter equipped diesels will be commonplace, and significant numbers of Petrol Direct Injection vehicles should also be available, according to industry projections*.

I trust that this answers your questions.

25 June 2007

*Additional information on industry projections from the Department for Transport A number of manufacturers have either introduced Petrol Direct Injection (PDI) engines in the last couple of years or publically announced their imminent launch. This includes Peugeot-Citroen, Mini, BMW, Mercedes, VW, Audi, Skoda, Toyota and Ford. In some (but not all) cases PDI introduction is at present limited to larger engines which do not constitute a large part of vehicle sales. However it is common practice for new technologies to be rolled out on larger, more expensive vehicles prior to implementation across the vehicle size range. One major vehicle manufacturer has indicated that they expect an aggressive ramp up in production such that by 2012 the majority of their petrol vehicle sales would be PDI. An estimate of PDI uptake (from last year) produced by an independent automotive industry consultancy (Ricardo Consulting Engineers) indicates a rapid increase in the next couple of years to 10% of all EU engine production. Note that the petrol/diesel market split in the EU is roughly 50/50 so 10% of all engines correspond to around 20% of all petrol engines being PDI.