WEEE Directive

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on securing the debate and on the considered, thorough and thoughtful way in which he introduced the subject. We had our debate greatly enlivened by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who took us through a technological history of his life. I think that if we look into his garage, we will find a range of things tucked away—[Interruption.] But not a car; I should imagine that we would probably find a C5, given his ability to buy things that are going out of fashion before they even start. We would probably find one of those mobile phones the size of a breezeblock and a range of wind-up radios and kettles of the wrong colour. It is a pleasure, too, to welcome the Minister back. I say that with some sadness, because I had hoped that he would move into the Cabinet. It is probably because I said that the last time that we met that he was not put in the Cabinet, so I regret any damage that I might have done to his career. However, all of us who are involved in dealings with him welcome the fact that he is still here. This is a timely debate, because some of our constituents are just beginning to wake up to the full implications of the directive and what it might mean for them. We are beginning to see letters come in and the number will grow significantly as the measures come fully into force. The UK throws away some 5 million televisions, 2 million home computers and 8,000 tonnes of battery-operated toys a year. I thought that that was just the amount that my children throw away, but apparently it is the national figure. Some 4.1 million units of household equipment that contain cathode ray tubes are disposed of in the UK every year, and a large proportion are believed to be at civic amenity sites. There have been six consultations, a review and three years of delay in implementing the directive. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has said that the endless delays, reviews and consultations have neither given retailers certainty nor a clear enough impression that the Government take the issue sufficiently seriously. He went on to add that this has been"““the longest WEEE in history””." But I am not sure that I can read that into the record. Member states were required to bring into force the WEEE compliant laws, regulations and administrative provisions by August 2004, but the Government did not lay the regulations before Parliament until December 2006. Those were huge and unacceptable delays, and perhaps the Minister can tell us why they occurred. As a consequence of the delays, the UK is one of eight member states in the EU to which the Commission has issued a final warning for failure to transpose the directive on time. What penalty does the UK face for the late implementation of the directive? The fee structure for the regulations was revised to provide some relief for smaller firms. The Department of Trade and Industry’s approach in listening to smaller companies and to the Federation of Small Businesses was encouraging, but the changes do not appear to have gone far enough and still risk being overly expensive for smaller businesses. What discussions has the Minister had with the Federation of Small Businesses and other groups to try to overcome the concerns of the business community? The directive is trying to avoid 500,000 tonnes of waste across the EU being buried in the ground each year, as some hazardous chemicals might leak. Waste electrical equipment is the fastest-growing category of rubbish in the European Union and, as the hon. Member for Southport said, some 14 kg per EU citizen are generated each year. It is unclear how the Government’s aim of reducing the number of items will affect the amount of domestic rubbish and the amount of waste electrical equipment involved in that. What steps are the Government taking to reduce the huge amount of electrical and electronic equipment disposed of by individual members of the public? We know that appropriate centres are being set up, but how many will there be and how will they be publicised? How broad is the definition of what will have to be taken back? The directive says that electrical and electronic equipment must be taken back if it is of an equivalent type and provides the same function as the new piece of equipment. What does that mean in practice? If someone is buying a plasma screen to replace an old television set, would that be covered? They might provide the same function, but they are certainly not of an equivalent type. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley has said, with the concern over digital switchover and the new equipment that is being bought, that will be a live issue. Each new generation of computer equipment has a range of functions that its predecessors did not have. By definition, such equipment does not provide the same function or else it would not be bought. What will be the requirement for it to be taken back and exchanged? If I want to buy an iPod and to exchange it for my old 1970s music centre, which I still have as I am one of those people who finds great difficulty in throwing away such things—I still have my first computer from school, which is the size of a breezeblock, because I think that I might need it again one day—would I be able to insist that my music centre be taken back? There are other issues that we need to address. Clearly, local authorities will face costs in providing the centres and sites for such activity. How are the local authorities expected to meet such costs and how much support are they being given by the Government? Can we also consider the impact on very small businesses, which the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) has mentioned? There are many small businesses for which the sale of electronic and electrical equipment is only a fraction of their business activity. For many of them, the cost of the directive could become disproportionate. What have the Government done to address their concerns? There are up to 9,000 local independent stores in the United Kingdom that employ up to 30,000 people, but they represent 15 per cent. of the UK IT sales sector, worth about £9 billion a year. The average turnover for those independent retailers is between £100,000 and £250,000 a year, which is not massive, and the cost of implementing the directive could be significant. We are concerned that small independent computer retailers and others will be left at a huge cost disadvantage compared with shops such as Comet, which may be able to absorb the cost easily. What will be the impact of the directive on those selling second-hand equipment and for whom electrical and electronic equipment is a very small part of their business? The hon. Member for Solihull told us about Benji’s, and I was slightly surprised by her story. I thought that all the people from Poland were doing such work here now, and I am surprised to find that there is anybody left in Poland to do the work there. They make a major contribution to our economy. The case highlights an issue involved: will such companies have to be fully compliant even if electrical and electronic equipment represents only a small part of their sales? There are also charities involved in the sector. There is a charity just outside my constituency called Furniture Now!, which provides furniture and other equipment to homeless families and people who are only just able to get a house and do not have the funds to furnish it. If it sells electrical equipment as a small sideline to its main operation, will it have to comply? If so, that could prevent that valuable charity from selling such equipment to people who are genuinely in need of such a low-cost facility. The Government have contributed £10 million to the distributor take-back scheme. What does the Minister estimate to be the total cost of setting up such a scheme, and how will the money be allocated? Will he also tell us what he sees as the responsibilities of end users that are corporate concerns rather than individuals? Sometimes corporate concerns are of much greater magnitude than the retailers that provide a service to them. If a big bank in the City were having a new telephone system installed, it would a be a specialised system and the bank would probably call on a quite small, specialist company to provide that service. Would the obligation to dispose of the old kit be on that small company, or would the large corporate concern have some responsibility? What about house clearance companies, which perhaps go in to clear up a property when an elderly person has died? What will be the onus on them to ensure that old electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of in the right way? We know that distributors are required to offer free in-store take-back facilities. What is the situation in relation to their charging for collection? Some of the items involved may be large, and a significant part of distributors’ business now is ensuring that items are delivered to our homes rather than our having to carry them there. Will such distributors be required to take things away free of charge, or will it be possible for them to charge the consumer for doing so? We all share the concern set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley about the cost of fly-tipping and the damage that it can cause. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that. We all agree that the system must be made as simple as possible for the consumer. If it is not, people will simply fly-tip or dispose of things in whatever way they think easiest. Can we move further and require all mobile phone outlets to have a bin into which people can put their old phones when they do not need them any more? Can we consider the system used in Norway, where every shop that sells batteries is required to have a little disposal unit for batteries so that they are not thrown away with the general waste? Much more can be done and should be done now.