WEEE Directive

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which ties in nicely with my next one. The whole point of article 8.2 of the WEEE directive was to ensure that manufacturers would build recyclability into their goods. However, a joint statement by a group of companies and NGOs on producer responsibility for waste electrical and electronic equipment stated that Britain and 10 other EU member states have not incorporated article 8.2. As they do not make producers directly responsible for the recycling of their own products, those producers can elect to pay a levy and someone else will pick up the tab. The whole purpose of article 8.2 was to incorporate recyclability into design. By not addressing the article, the Government have missed the whole point. Why did Britain not fully implement article 8.2, as 12 other EU countries have done? What are the Government doing to remedy that and to encourage manufacturers to place a strong emphasis on design and recyclability, so that companies can divest themselves of goods in a way that will not compromise their confidentiality and commercial information? Finally, I should like to raise the strange story of Benji’s in Llanidloes—I apologise to residents of the town in case I did not get the pronunciation right. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has raised the issue with the Minister before, but he has not yet been favoured with a reply. The problem is as follows. I buy a kettle and decide that I do not like its colour, so I return it to the retailer. As I understand it, the kettle cannot go back on the shelf for health and safety reasons; I might have gone into the workings of the kettle and interfered with it. Under the WEEE directive, that kettle would be designated as waste. Benji’s has made a good living doing exactly what the WEEE directive is trying to promote. When goods are returned from major high street retailers, the company tests them, checks that they work and resells them. If there is a fault, it repairs them and then resells them. The problem is that the factory, where the company does all the repairs, is in Poland. As the products are not included in any of the three specified types of list under the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994, they go on the red list, which is the same category as toxic waste. Every country that Benji’s has to send the goods through to reach Poland takes a mountain of paperwork and a three-day delay. If they go through France, Austria and Germany, which would be the normal route, that causes a major problem for Benji’s and for many other companies that wish to transport electrical goods across frontiers and are unable to do so purely because of the amount of paperwork. That is extremely unfortunate, as the biggest hazard from 99 per cent. of those goods would be that someone could drop them on their foot. I would be grateful if the Minister considered that. The major problem that Benji is experiencing is that every two to three weeks Environment Agency officials descend on his warehouse with search warrants to check his premises for waste. As I understand it, any items that have not yet been sorted as fit for resale or needing repair are designated as waste and Benji receives an order that requires him to throw into landfill hundreds of tonnes of goods that could be reused, repaired and recycled. I would be grateful if the Minister looked into that specific matter as a point of urgency. The company’s livelihood is threatened and I wonder how many more misunderstandings and overzealous interpretations by Government officials are causing a hazard and thwarting the reasons why the regulations were created in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire has been working with Government officials to attempt to solve the problem, but we need the Minister to show agreement in principle to ensure that the WEEE directive does not have the unintended consequence of hindering the reuse and repair of damaged goods.