Mr.
Todd: It is a sizeable market.
Ian
Lucas: Indeed, it is. It is an important area of the
market, so we need to ensure that it is covered.
At the
moment, we have a situation whereby the distributors reach an agreement
with the producer compliance scheme on a broad basis about disposal.
The extension that may come about by the recast directive may encompass
the producers. Again, however, it would not be an individual product
that would be traced through the process. There would be a broad
approach, which would encompass collection from the doorstep under the
new proposals by the producer compliance scheme. That creates
additional cost burdens, which is an issue that is certainly under
discussion.
John
Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): Thank you,
Mr. Hancock. It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship; I think that it is the first time I have done
so.
There are a
number of areas of concern about the current operation. For instance,
there is a concern that goods are exported and end up in landfills
somewhere outside the European Union, and there are questions as to how
the directive deals with that issue.
One area that
I have a particular concern about is the methodology that is used for
the cost-benefit analysis. Having too obsessive an approach with the
cost-benefit analysis about protecting the environment is not
necessarily the best way forward. Within the directive we have detailed
figures about CO2 but we do not have detailed figures about
landfill taxation and the general environmental
issues. Perhaps
my biggest concern, however, can be seen with regard to the problem
that we have in recycling green waste. The best way to recycle green
waste is to put it on a compost heap in the garden, but that is very
difficult to measure. Consequently, what we have is a situation where
people are collecting green waste and taking it to central
composting.
The best way
to reuse chargers is to have the same charger for all phones, as I
think the phone companies are doing at the moment. They will all have
the same charger, so hopefully it will be possible to buy a phone
without buying a charger. When we think about the
physical size of the devices, the charger is often bigger than the
phone. I wonder what can be done within the directive to encourage
reduction of waste rather than anything
else. The
Chairman: Thank you for that equally brief question,
Mr. Hemming.
Ian
Lucas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point
that he raises. One of the challenges of this particular area is the
huge range of items that are included for disposal. When one talks
about the directive, one perhaps thinks first of the white
goods market. Obviously, white goods have a very substantial
environmental impact indeed. Equally challenging, however, is the
disposal of smaller items, particularly when we are talking about
disposal at home and how we can encourage reuse of such
items.
I think that
the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about standardisation. I am
sure that it is an eternal frustration to all of us that none of our
mobile phone chargers seem to fit the new model of phone that comes
along. Standardisation is certainly something that I would like to see
taken forward, but I am not sure if that could be done within the terms
of this particular directive.
John
Hemming: Will the Minister agree to write to me with his
thoughts on what could be done within this to encourage the reduction
of waste and move towards zero waste, rather than having processed
waste?
Ian
Lucas: I will write to the hon.
Gentleman.
John
Penrose: To return to the impact assessment, I aim to push
the Minister a bit harder on the accuracy of the figures. His
Department’s assessment of the costs and benefits in paragraphs
25 to 30 of the impact assessment—adding together all the
different costs—seems to indicate a cost in 2008 of roughly
£100 million to UK producers. Yet, the original impact
assessment for the WEEE directive, as recorded by the British Chambers
of Commerce, which uses the Government’s original impact
assessments, says that the cost in 2008 was £200
million. Could the Minister explain the
difference?
Ian
Lucas: I am afraid that I cannot, but it is an area in
which I take a close interest. I will investigate the position and will
contact the hon. Gentleman with a
response.
John
Penrose: I am glad the Minister will come back to me but I
am progressively more worried by the number of things that the Minister
has to write to us on and by the fact that his opening comment was that
he would not step back from any figures in the cost-benefit analysis,
even though they showed this to be a net disbenefit to the UK overall.
I urge him strongly to reconsider whether these numbers are a
satisfactory basis on which to
continue.
The
Chairman: Order. Before you reply, Minister, I think your
staff are sitting at the wrong end of the room. Would they like to come
and join us? It might be more
helpful—
John
Penrose: If the Minister is searching for
inspiration.
The
Chairman: I do not know about that, but they might be able
to assist. Please come
round.
Ian
Lucas: The proposal before the Committee is for a recast
directive. The process being undertaken is to consult on the recast
directive. Part of the process of scrutiny is the valuable discussion
we are having today. Therefore, we will come back to these issues in
due course because the consultation we have been discussing—and
that I have referred to on a number of occasions—has not yet
concluded. It is to report later in the year. Clearly, no decisions
will be made on the content of the directive as applied in the UK until
that consultation is completed. When that happens the Government will
bring forward proposals. The hon. Gentleman perhaps misunderstands that
this is a proposal for a recast directive from the EU, upon which we
are consulting at present. The proposals being made are not necessarily
the Government’s because we are consulting and will reflect once
we have received the observations of the Committee and the more broad
observations on how the matter will be taken
forward.
Mr.
Todd: I turn to a different subject, that of
competitiveness. A key issue that ought to concern us is the relative
impact of this on businesses operating in the UK compared with other
parts of the European Union. What attempts are being made by the
Department to understand the models likely to be applied in other
member states and, critically in my past experience, their timelines
for adopting and implementing this directive? In this country we tend
to leap earlier than a lot of other member states in implementing a
directive and also implement it in a sharper form than sometimes
applies in other member states. In this case, that would be very much
to the disbenefit of producers and retailers in our country compared
with other member states.
Ian
Lucas: I can reassure my hon. Friend that we were second
to last within the European Union to implement the original directive,
so this was not an issue we rushed forward. There was a great deal of
consultation and discussion about it when the matter was originally
taken forward. I agree that the competitiveness of UK industry and of
this industry is hugely important. We have actually done very well on
the targets and I hope that that continues. One part of the process
that I have described is looking at the steps that have been taken in
other members states.
Mr.
Todd: On the same theme, it is important to address
competitiveness within the sector. Because a rather broad-brush
approach is being taken and because a percentage rule is being applied
across the value of items placed in the market, one may find that
perverse effects within the sector disbenefit producers of particular
items as against other producers of other items within the sector. Has
the Minister examined that and what representations have the Government
received from the sector on
it?
Ian
Lucas: I am not aware that specific representations on
that point have been received in the consultation. However, I am
anxious to hear of such issues in the
consultation if they are important within the industry and if the
industry feels that they should be brought to my
attention.
John
Penrose: Those last questions bring us quite neatly to the
question of the practicality of achieving some of the proposed targets,
which the rapporteur raised. Will the Minister tell us in figures how
the UK performance on both the current targets and the proposed targets
compares with the EU average and other countries in the EU? Are we
ahead of or behind the pack? That will help us to gauge the expected
impact, which was asked about in previous
questions.
Ian
Lucas: As I mentioned, we have been performing relatively
well against the current target. We exceeded the target in the first
year and have improved on that—we have gone up to 6.9 kg, I
believe. Other member states are doing better than we
are—Germany is the best performing member state—and
comparative figures from across the EU that will give us the full
picture of how individual countries are performing will be published by
the Commission later in the year.
John
Penrose: That none the less raises some significant
concerns. The papers that have been circulated demonstrate that the
patterns of electrical and electronic equipment usage, re-use and
recycling in this country are different from those of many other EU
countries. Given our current level of performance, could it be that an
improvement will not be possible against the one-size-fits-all targets
that we have heard about? Would specific targets to reflect this
country’s pattern of usage be more
appropriate?
Ian
Lucas: Although there is a temptation to ally individual
targets to the situation in each state, we have an obligation to work
towards higher standards. The disbenefit of looking at our own
performance against the targets is that we will not aspire to reach,
for example, the German performance. One important aspect is that we
should strive to do better even when we are doing relatively well. It
is therefore important to take into account a broad target and to reach
a common high standard across the EU.
John
Penrose: The end of paragraph 53 of the
Government’s impact assessment, which is on the different
patterns of usage within the UK and whether it will be practically
possible—not simply desirable—to achieve the new targets,
states: “To
achieve 65 per cent of total non-household EEE the UK would have needed
to collect 255,000 tonnes of non-household WEEE equivalent to 108 per
cent of total arisings. This would clearly not have been possible to
achieve.” Given
his own Department’s conclusion, will the Minister think again
about whether it is possible to achieve the target, no matter how
desirable improving this country’s recycling performance may
be?
Ian
Lucas: The
statement, “This
would clearly not have been possible to
achieve”, relates
to the past position. As I said earlier, the issue under discussion
relates to a target up to 2016, which is some years hence, and we want
to work towards achieving
the target. I do not think that we need to be concerned about ambition.
The target is over a considerable period, and we want to improve our
performance. Mr.
Todd: Let me turn to some of the issue’s technical
aspects. Many of the items include fairly significant amounts of
hazardous material if stripped down for recycling. How well prepared is
the sector to handle and deal with mercury, cadmium and other scarce
metals in order to recycle them safely, store them appropriately and to
meet the order’s
obligations. Also,
how clearly do consumers understand—or how clearly will they be
made to understand—their responsibilities in the matter?
Low-energy light bulbs are supposed to be recycled rather than chucked
into a domestic waste bin, because they contain hazardous materials. I
strongly suspect that large numbers of consumers do not properly
understand that, and the facilities available for recycling low-energy
light bulbs are extraordinarily
limited.
Ian
Lucas: On the first point, one of the original
scheme’s motors was the fact that so many hazardous substances
were involved, so my hon. Friend is right to raise that as an important
issue. The relative success to date is that disposable items are being
dealt with by the producer compliance schemes, which we want to build
upon. On the second point, he is right that we need to do far more to
inform and educate consumers. Some progress has been made and there has
been something of a sea change in consumers’ views towards
recycling in the past few years, which is very welcome. However, other
countries in the European Union have achieved more than us, and we need
to continue to up our game in relation to informing
consumers.
John
Penrose: May I take the Minister back to his response to
my previous question about achieving an equivalent of 108 per
cent. of total arisings for recycling non-household waste electrical
and electronic equipment? He responded that we have time to achieve the
target between now and 2016. If we have to achieve 108 per cent. of
total arisings, it does not matter how long we have got, because it
cannot be done; it is physically impossible. I am intrigued to know how
he proposes to deal with the issue, no matter how long he has
got.
Ian
Lucas: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s
description that the target is impossible to achieve. We are talking
about a target of 65 per cent. by 2016, which is the proposed target
within a recast directive on which we are currently consulting. We are
assessing, and consulting on, whether the target is achievable. Of
course, representations will be made in due course about the position
more generally. I am advised that the UK disposes of more electrical
and electronic equipment than is officially recorded. In other words,
there is unofficial disposal, and we need to encourage more separate
collection of electrical and electronic equipment so that it is counted
within the system. It is for that reason that the 108 per cent.
disparity is referred to. At the moment, not all such electronic
equipment is counted within the system.
John
Penrose: I thank the Minister for his attempt at an
explanation, but the most reassuring thing he said was that the
Government are consulting and are—I hope I am not putting words
in his mouth—willing to be flexible in their approach to the
Commission as a result of what they hear. I encourage him as strongly
as possible to go back to the Commission and point out that the target
will be extremely hard for the UK to achieve.
Does the
Minister have any information about the relative cost, and efficiency
of that cost, of other countries’ efforts to comply with the
existing and planned future WEEE directive? He mentioned that Germany
is leading the pack. My understanding is that it has an incredibly
onerous and expensive system. It may be that the cost of each
additional pound or kilogram of WEEE that is recycled is immensely
high. Is the UK’s cost-efficiency in achieving its outcomes
better, or is Germany, in spite of being a higher-cost system, none the
less achieving better efficiencies as a
result?
| 
