| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10 July 2007 : Column 379WH—continued
11.43 am
Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con):
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. Lady 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 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 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.
Mr. Evans:
I have one additional point on mobile phones, which people renew regularly, and particularly on the interfaces on them. When disposing of a mobile phone, there is also the plug that goes into the wall. What goes into a mobile phone is different even within the same company—Nokia seems to have several interfaces on different models. Why cannot there be common interfaces so that people can reuse the plugs
and the stuff that goes into the phone on different models, or certainly on models by the same company?
Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. The manufacturers should undoubtedly consider that, because one simply buys the next model—whether of a phone, digital camera or whatever—and discovers that the old power supply cannot be used. One ends up with drawers full of old plugs and the whole range of connection cables that go with them and one cannot remember what they were for. Manufacturers could help significantly by designing out such faults and failings.
Will the Minister say a little about the support that will be available for other charities? There is a charity in my constituency called Computers for Charities, which takes second-hand computers. It finds significant problems in recycling them and making them available again. What is his Department doing to facilitate that process?
We all accept that the directive has an important contribution to make. The hon. Member for Southport made a strong case for why it should be in place and for its benefits, but, as he and others have said, it is cumbersome, chaotic and is not being implemented successfully. This may have been, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has said, the longest WEEE in history, but it has certainly not been a comfortable experience.
11.55 am
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Malcolm Wicks): I intend to follow that, but first, in the traditional way, I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on securing the debate. I welcome the opportunity to expand on how we are implementing the unfortunately known WEEE directive in the United Kingdom. It is an important piece of environmental legislation that is intended to address in a practical and environmentally effective manner the increasing levels of waste electrical and electronic equipment here in the UK and across the European Union.
The directive comes at a good time, because more and more of our constituents are busy recycling bottles of lemonade, plastics, paper and so on when they can. Many people will welcome opportunities to recycle the vast amount of electrical equipment that they have in their homes. As hon. Members detailed their electrical experiences and electronic behaviour, I thought, “Who needs the Freedom of Information Act when hon. Members are so willing to tell us about their experiences?” The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), as has been noted, rather movingly told us about his desperate childhood in the valleys without a mobile phone and being forced to experience the Grundig V2000. I shall not try to compete with that in the normal way by saying that in my day we would just gather round the piano singing “Hound Dog” and “Are You Lonesome Tonight?”, because we have had quite enough of that already.
To put the matter in context, as hon. Members already have, we estimate that about 2 million tonnes of
electrical and electronic waste were generated in the UK last year, and that is probably the case every year. One of my colleagues calculated that that is enough to fill the new Wembley stadium up to six times over, which probably accounts for the delay in the construction of Wembley stadium. I hope that the Select Committee is considering that fact. At an individual level, we calculate that each UK citizen will generate 3.3 tonnes of electrical waste during their lifetime. The hon. Member for Southport reminded us of the trend to have so much electronic gadgetry.
The UK system is designed to ensure that waste is not dumped in landfill to damage the environment for current and future generations but separately collected, treated and recycled. The UK implementation of the regulations came fully into force on 1 July and I am pleased by the response that producers, distributors, retailers, local authorities, re-use organisations and the waste treatment and recycling industries have made in working together to deliver an effective system. We admit that the system has been difficult to put in place and is coming in later than we had intended, but I assure hon. Members that the European Union is now very pleased with the way in which we are implementing the directive.
I wish to say something about producers, Mr. Wilshire, and I welcome you to the Chair in this important debate.
Mr. David Wilshire (in the Chair): You are very kind.
Malcolm Wicks: The regulations place obligations on all producers of electrical and electronic equipment to finance the costs of collection and the waste management of the products that they place on the UK market. All responsible businesses have welcomed the aims of the WEEE regulations, as they are keen to limit the environmental impact of their products when they reach the end of their lives.
Under the UK system, all producers are required to join an approved producer compliance scheme that best meets their needs. The environment agencies have now approved 37 such schemes. Collectively, more than 3,300 producers have registered so far. I recognise, however, that there will be businesses that have not yet joined the WEEE system, despite the efforts of Government and business representative organisations. We will therefore continue our ongoing efforts to raise awareness of the regulations; for example, a further series of UK-wide roadshow events are planned for September—if Members have not yet booked their holiday, that is worth bearing in mind—and the Environment Agency will shortly be commencing a telephone campaign to alert companies that may have obligations.
Let me say something about retailers and distributors. Although the bulk of the obligations rests with producers of electrical and electronic equipment, the distributors of such equipment also have obligations. When a replacement item of electrical or electronic gear is purchased, distributors must provide facilities for consumers to return equipment that has reached the end of its life. That can be done in one of two ways. They can offer services to take back the equipment at their premises—I believe that Dixons is doing that—or, more typically, as it is turning out, they
can join the distributor take-back scheme, which will help them discharge their obligations. So far, 2,550 distributors have joined the scheme, and, as a result, £10 million will be provided to local authorities for the use of their sites and to finance any upgrading, signage and so on that may be needed.
Let me say something about the role of local authorities. The WEEE regulations place no direct obligation on local authorities. Some media reports have claimed that local authorities will incur a financial burden as a result of the regulations, but that will not be the case if they become part of the WEEE system by applying for their sites to be designated collection facilities, whereby they can arrange for a producer compliance scheme to provide the necessary containers to collect WEEE and to clear WEEE from their sites for free.
Local authorities may count the recycling of such waste deposited at their sites towards their recycling targets and, by reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill, they will be able to reduce their waste disposal costs. To date, 99 per cent. of local authorities have applied to participate in the system. All but two sites have so far been approved.
Lorely Burt: I hope that before he leaves this subject, the Minister will address my point about article 8.2, which related to manufacturers incorporating thought into their design process because of the requirement for them to take back their own products. So far, he has not addressed it. Also, is he blaming local authorities for not having been able to find producers to collect the waste from their sites?
Malcolm Wicks: I come not to blame local authorities but to praise them. I am chasing up a couple of slow coaches, but 99 per cent. have already signed up, so I am encouraged by the local authority response.
On design, we are already seeing signs in the United Kingdom that the producers of electrical and electronic goods are thinking hard about sustainability, and that they are recognising that the materials will be recycled. People are already incorporating such considerations into their designs. We need to consider the best approach, but the hon. Lady makes an important point. Between 60 and 70 per cent. of local authorities have finalised or are finalising arrangements for clearance of their sites by a scheme, and we expect all local authorities to have reached agreements with schemes in the next few months.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |