It is a pleasure, Mr. Taylor, to see you in such an obvious and deserved position of authority today.

This debate has excited a lot of interest in the electrical industry, and I hope that it will excite some interest among elected Members of Parliament. The directive is a response to the growing volume of electrical and electronic waste, which is the fastest growing waste stream by volume and by weight. The UK produces 1.2 million tonnes a year, and the EU produces 14 kg per person a year, which is astonishingly high.

The causes are readily identifiable. Clearly, there is rising disposable income. There is also considerable technological development in mobile phones and the ever-ongoing IT revolution, which affects all aspects of our existence: home, workplace and leisure activities. There is a greater variety of electrical and electronic products to buy, such as simple things like toothbrushes and mowers, which used to be worked by hand and are now worked by electricity, and new developments such as DVD players and microwaves, the like of which previous generations did not see. There are new electrical products on the market.

There is also a strong element of planned obsolescence in the industry, which was formerly a feature of the automotive industry. We recall cars that were developed with rust pockets built into them, and the use of chromium alongside steel, which precipitates immediate rusting. We recall the time that almost every car in the street was rusting away shortly after it left the showroom. There is a similar syndrome in the electrical and electronic industry. We can all point to breakable plastic features of electrical equipment that forces us to cashier it although it is otherwise usable.

One issue that the hon. Gentleman has not yet touched on is the digital switchover. There is a fear that many televisions and video recorders will be obsolete and that a huge mountain of them will have to be coped with. They may not even fall within the terms of the directive if they were bought some time ago. The fear is that many will end up in people’s gardens and be unsightly, or that they will be fly-tipped, which is another problem that may result from the directive.

Order. Interventions should be brief.

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my later comments. I think that probably every house in the country has a VHS recorder in a cupboard somewhere that will shortly be taken to a waste disposal site.

Another element is that many electrical goods are difficult and expensive to repair, and there is a general lack of repair facilities even when the fault is relatively minor. A worse vice to lay at the electrical industry’s door is the phasing of innovation to boost consumption artificially. DVD players were released, and a year or two later when most of them had been sold, out came DVD recorders. There was a push towards widescreen TV and when everyone had one, along came high definition TV, which is not available on the previous widescreen TVs. Flip-top phones were introduced and MP3 players were added later, but it would have been possible to do that earlier. The industry markets sophisticated computers and then changes the software so that a new computer must be bought.

The result is that the life of electrical goods is short, even when quality is good. Much waste is either workable or reparable, unlike the car of the 1960s. There are huge quantities of 14-in and 15-in cathode ray tube monitors gracing every tip throughout the UK, and there is no reason to think that the trend will change. As the hon. Gentleman emphasised, the digital switchover will, if anything, accelerate that trend. As with the advent of 3G networks, the arrival of Windows Vista will add to the mountain of computers, TVs, phones and VHS recorders. The benefits of innovation are sometimes uncertain, but the effect on the waste stream is in no doubt.

The waste electrical and electronic equipment directive endeavours to address the issue. Before discussing it in detail, I want to highlight two fundamental questions without going into them in depth. I want to park them. One issue is necessity: why the directive is necessary. Leaving aside the hazardous substances issue, if the waste is inert, the production materials are plentiful, consumers are happy, employment is maintained and the cost of recycling and reuse is high or intensive in energy consumption, why should we have the directive? I shall not go into that, but I am raising the matter simply to point to the fact that it exists.

Even if the waste is a problem and worth addressing—I think it is—there is still the question of whether that should be done on a European basis. During a debate in the House of Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke went into the matter in depth, and asked whether we needed a European solution. Unlike rules on air quality and rivers, it is not obvious that a pan-European solution is necessary rather than national solutions, although any national scheme based on producer responsibility would have to come to terms with single market regulations, which may be why we are approaching this problem in a pan-European way.

I wanted to highlight those problems, and park them, because I want to deal with what we have got. I am broadly sympathetic with the thrust of the directive. I view old machinery fondly as children of the human spirit. I grieve over old TVs when I throw them out. I even repair old computers and printers, and am something of a specialist on Hewlett Packard. I am emotionally shocked by skips full of perfectly usable equipment and repelled by the apparent wastefulness.

The WEEE directive tries to reduce the waste stream, and its policy is straightforward. It sets targets for reuse and recovery; it makes producers or importers liable for meeting those targets and, in so doing, it hopes to provide a stimulus for less wasteful production and better design. The general brief or prospectus is agreed and clear, and most people are sympathetic, but its economic effects are unknown. They may add to consumer costs, which to some extent depends on whether the recycling and reuse market is profitable in the long term. I believe that it can be, but I am not certain.

The big problem is not the prospectus or its economic effects, but the practical implementation. The correct EU phrase for what the Government are expected to do is “transposition by the national state”. I have some sympathy with the Government because the directive is complex to transpose. There are distinctions to be drawn between historic pre-2005 waste and new waste, and between householders, who essentially have free disposal, and the rights of corporate customers, who have limited liability when not exchanging like-for-like-goods, but I believe they have a right to the collection of goods.

It is difficult for all nations to interpret their version of what individual producer responsibility amounts to and to work out how the directive’s overall objectives will be achieved. There is difficulty when discussing product types, which is important in cataloguing waste and billing it. There are different systems and different categories in different countries, and there is debate about whether something falls within the directive because it is a non-fixed asset and whether CCTV and so on is not covered because it is a fixed asset and part and parcel of a building.

National schemes are supposed to clarify those complex issues, and in the UK, rather than take a scheme off the peg from Johnny foreigner or whomever, we have devised our own—slowly, it must be said, because we have been warned several times to get on with it, and in our own individual way. To be fair to the Government, they have had all the usual accoutrements that one would expect to find attached to new legislation. There have been consultations, roadshows, notification to all the various bodies, and, as is always the case, a massive proliferation of acronyms, which so far I have managed to avoid using.

Essentially, the Government are seeking to stimulate or construct a network of responsibilities between producers, who are ultimately the funders, consumers, who have the stuff, waste collectors and receivers, who are normally but not exclusively local authorities, and recyclers, who are usually private companies or social enterprises. For the whole system to work and to hang together, each must understand their part in it, and they must be willing to play their part in a complex operation.

The “understanding” aspect has been extraordinarily slow and, perforce, difficult. Again, however, I have some sympathy with the Government’s problem in getting their message across, because an awful lot of people do not wake up to the imperative of new regulations, or of any change until it hits them. No matter how many prospectuses and advanced notifications one gives, many people work on a need-to-know basis, and respond, sit up and take note only when the regulations impact.

Research shows that only 2 per cent. of the public know anything about the directive, so we in the Chamber are a privileged group. Worse still, 43 per cent. of big producers are generally unsure about the demands that it may make of them, and 70 per cent. of small firms do not know that it exists, which is worrying.

To confirm what the hon. Gentleman says, on Saturday I was approached by a constituent who takes old phone systems and tries to recycle them. The process involves some waste, and he was unsure about whether he should register. That is part of the problem. The main electrical retailers seem to know what they are doing, but elsewhere in the waste chain, an awful lot of people are uncertain.

That is a big problem. In responding to that intervention, I should like to put on record the great part that big firms such as Hewlett Packard have played in ensuring that there is awareness throughout the system. However, even the big firms’ attempts have not gone so far as to penetrate the smaller retailers, who think about their day’s profits and the products that they sell, rather than about their products’ end-life use.

I had some initial fears, which, to some extent, have been dispelled. I was genuinely worried that there would be a lack of producer co-operation, but that is not true. I have been impressed by the extent to which the big players in particular have wanted to make the legislation work—and work on a European basis. I was worried that there would not be any adequate recycling facilities to do anything useful with the products when they were returned. The studies that I have made and the information that I have received convinces me that there is a more mature market than I thought, however. There are more end-use products: the stuff is not just being collected and put in warehouses; there are some valid and intelligent uses, even for things such as plastic casings.

There are problems in certain areas, however. I am told that, for example, a dead television is practically worthless in terms of what it or its components can be turned into. I was worried at first that there would not be an adequate number of disposal sites where people could take products. According to a recent Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs answer, however, my worries are again misplaced. Local authorities are more clued up than I expected and 72 per cent. are ready, so the infrastructure seems to exist.

Is my hon. Friend aware that on the last count, 250 council recycling centres did not have a partnership with a manufacturer’s scheme? That situation has been calculated to leave council tax payers with an estimated £27 million bill: £18 million for the facilities to collect and recycle and £9 million for the running of civic amenity sites.

That is a big problem, which I shall go on to highlight. There is a distinction between an authority’s physical readiness, whereby it is tooled up to do the job, and its contractual readiness, whereby it has all the paperwork in place to do the job and make the scheme work effectively. That is where the problem lies. Contractual certainty and clarity do not exist, and I do not see how the market can work without them. In fact, by general confession, in place of contractual certainty and clarity is something tantamount to a bureaucratic nightmare.

People who ought to know, because they are intimately involved with the regulations, tell me that the contractual uncertainty and lack of clarity are leading to the collapse of many pre-existing arrangements and the rise of mutual suspicions among all elements of the network. Producers fear over-billing; local authorities fear being left holding the baby, because the equipment will not be removed; and recyclers worry about the predatory activities of the black or grey markets.

Many councils have not signed up to a producer-compliance scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) just said that they number 250. Recyclers and producers are struggling with the critical evidence notice, which is the basis for the financial part of the transaction and crucial to the producers. Many people who are responsible for the recycling stations do not have the required permits from the Environment Agency, and although guidance was issued by the Department of Trade and Industry, it is widely agreed to be confusing. That is not my declaration; it has been passed on to me by people who have to use the guidance. Everyone is buried in paperwork, and that view seems to be the consensus. Some of the people implementing the process are not particularly sophisticated in handling complex paperwork.

If such chaos characterises the arrangements between people who are willing to be responsible partners, one has to wonder what chance the Government have of dealing with the trade’s less reputable element—the people who work on the grey and black markets. If we cannot run a straightforward system, how will enforcement be run any better? They have the capacity to frustrate almost all the objectives of the WEEE regulations.

The market figures are massive. Apparently, we export 150,000 fridges per annum; 150,000 washing machines and cookers; 500,000 televisions, which is equivalent to 10 per cent. of the UK’s electrical waste stream; 150,000 videos, with presumably many more to go; and 1.3 million monitors. It is a phenomenal but, by and large, unregulated trade. We are poorly equipped to run a satisfactory WEEE market, and we are vulnerable both to administrative chaos and to exploitation by people who work in a less regulated market.

If that characterises our current efforts, I am somewhat sceptical about what we will do when we aim for a more fine-grained implementation of the directive—when we get down to making individual producers responsible, as the best of them want to be, for their products and not anybody else’s. Unless we do something like that, we will not encourage the improvement in design quality and general recyclability to which the directive aspires. The EU will definitely review the legislation and how it works in the round throughout Europe, but what we need now from the Minister and the Government is hands-on action to alleviate the administrative chaos and to make this worthy directive work properly.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on securing this debate on a matter that is important to the vast majority of people in this country and to businesses, as has been mentioned.

We live in a dynamic world. I suspect that if a number of us looked around our houses to see how many bits of electrical equipment are fast becoming obsolete due to new technology, we would all have our own mini-mountains, irrespective of the 35 million to 40 million houses in the United Kingdom and the 60 million people living within our shores. Another aspect, which has not been mentioned, is the fact that our population is ageing. We must pay due regard to that ageing population to ensure that they are given as much assistance as possible in disposing of their electrical items safely and securely.

I mentioned my worry, although the hon. Gentleman did not dwell on it, about fly-tipping. It concerns me greatly. If an individual has to pay to dispose of an item that they always assumed somebody would get rid of, and if the cost is too high or the bother too great, they might be tempted to tip the equipment either in the countryside or somewhere in their community. That would be awful, and it is clearly something that we do not want. Local authorities have a huge responsibility, as do the businesses that sell the items in the first place. We must ensure that electrical items are designed and manufactured to be as recyclable as possible.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned mobile phones. I am waiting with bated breath to get my hands on an iPhone, the wonderful new Apple product. No doubt if I wait another six months I will want something else, because I am a bit of a gadgets freak, but that will mean, of course, that the old phone will become obsolete. A number of places—Tesco operates a scheme, as does Carphone Warehouse—say, “Please hand back your mobile phone, and we will make sure that it is recycled,” and provide an incentive to do just that. We all carry such items as fashion accessories—I suspect that a number of us could not live without them. What will happen to all the old ones? I was speaking last Friday to a group of schoolchildren in my constituency, and I told them that when I was their age, we did not even have mobile phones.

Or telephones.

We had telephones, but we did not have mobile phones. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to speak for himself on that matter.

Since mobile phones have been around, I have probably gone through about 30 of them. Some of them have been lost; goodness knows where they have ended up. We want to ensure that they are recyclable, and that we are not storing up mountains of mobile phones, to name one specific item, for the future. Landfill is a wasting asset in our country. We must look at ways of ensuring that we recycle as much as we possibly can.

I mentioned the digital switchover, which will be completed in 2012, alongside the fact that LCD and plasma-screen TVs came on the market at roughly the same time. People are now looking again at their electrical items. A TV has a shelf life of about 10 years before it needs to be disposed of, but I suspect that as far as the technology is concerned, most TVs’ lifetime is a lot shorter than that. In the past five years, high-definition television has been introduced, and those who bought LCD or plasma-screen TVs five years ago might be thinking, “Shavings! If only I’d waited, I could have had a high-definition television now.” Well, to use a high-definition television, they will need a high-definition Sky Plus box or its equivalent. What will happen to all the old equipment, as well as to the obsolete TVs and video recorders that we discussed earlier?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned video recorders, which themselves are becoming obsolete as people move to DVD players and recorders. My family was peculiar in that we chose neither Betamax nor VHS; we were one of the few families in Britain with a Grundig V2000. I think that it was obsolete when we bought it. It is just as well, because nobody in the family could work it—it was Jodrell Bank technology. It did a lot of things that we could not work out whether we wanted it to do; all we wanted was a simple video recorder. A number of such items must be disposed of.

When my washing machine broke down the other day, I went out and chose a new one. I asked the person who sold me the new one, “Of course, you will take away the old one, won’t you?” They looked horrified, and said, “I’m not so sure we can do that any more.” It comes down to businesses’ ignorance of what can and cannot be done. I said, “Well, it’s going to be a bit awkward for me, because I don’t have a garden at the front where I can put it for a few days while I wait for the local authority.” Because of many people’s lifestyles—both parents often work, for instance—we must make it as simple as possible. We certainly do not want gardens littered with electrical items while people wait for the local authority to come around. I must say that the Ribble Valley council is very good, with a keen department that takes away items and ensures that they are recycled where possible. That is important.

In the end, the company from which I bought the new washing machine said, “For a small fee, Mr. Evans, we will take away the old one.” Thank goodness they did, but I worry about elderly people. If they turn up asking for a new electrical item and are told, “You have to dispose of it yourself,” that will add an extra problem. They will think, “I’m buying a new one, but in the good old days the company would take the old one away and dispose of it.” That is what needs to happen now.

I remember some of the newspaper articles published at the time of the fridge mountains—there were amazing photographs of fridges being stockpiled. That is why we must ensure that there are businesses specialising in recycling. The hon. Gentleman mentioned his surprise that the industry was geared up far better than even he thought it would be. There must be best practice in other countries that do such things better than we do. I hope that, in connection with the directive, we can see which countries do.

To be fair, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee considered both the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive and the end-of-life vehicles directive some years ago. Although we were critical of both, the ELV directive has worked well. If the hon. Gentleman wants expertise to see how we could recycle many waste products, I suggest that the ELV directive is the place to go.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s advice. I am a carless person now. I tried to sell mine to a friend, who had it checked out to see what was wrong with it—he calls himself a friend. He phoned me up and said, “Do you want the good news or the bad news?” I said, “Give us the good news.” He said, “There’s nothing wrong with the exhaust.” I contacted the people at the garage that he had taken it to, and fortunately they took the vehicle back; I hope that they stripped it of everything possible.

Best practice needs to be adopted and spread throughout the country. It all comes down to the fact that everything done with good intentions has unintended consequences. I hope that we can consider the unintended consequences of this issue and try to iron them out at the relevant legislative stages. I am sure that the Government are considering how we can make things a lot easier for people and go without a lot of the bureaucracy and paperwork that dog our daily lives. The vast majority of people do all they can to ensure that the generations to come have a future and that we do not leave them a planet full of electrical rubbish. We need the legislation that will help those generations.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on securing this important debate. As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said in his most amusing and illustrative speech, the legislation has a lot of unintended consequences. While we are still at the beginning, I want not only to pick up some of my hon. Friend’s points, but to make some additional ones. I should be grateful if the Minister addressed them.

On consumer awareness, a recent poll found that only 2 per cent. of people knew about the WEEE directive and their responsibility. My first question for the Minister is about what the Government are doing to make the consumer aware of what is required in respect of returning electrical goods. A similar study found that 76 per cent. of people shown the symbol of a wheelie bin with a cross on it could not work out that that meant that they were not supposed to throw the article away, but take it back and recycle it. Some people thought that the symbol meant, “No wheelie bins around here” and there were various other misunderstandings. I ask the Government in all seriousness to ensure that such messages are clear. I do not watch much television, but I do not know of any advertising campaigns on the subject. Perhaps the Minister could tell me of one.

The symbol is hard to spot on many goods. In preparation for this debate, I went round my house looking at my electrical products to see whether they had the symbol. I had never previously noticed, but there it was on the DVD recorder and laptop. However, I had to look for it; I had never noticed it before.

The symbol has to be seen before it can be misunderstood, so that is an important point.

I turn to the problem of enforcement. What have the Government been doing in the four years that they have had to make the regulations workable? My hon. Friend talked of the mountain of paperwork to which companies have been subjected. The Government have pushed back the introduction of the regulations several times because of the complex requirements of the law. Why have they seemed to make things more complex instead of simplifying them, particularly in respect of small businesses, which need to understand and to comply with the regulations?

The regulations give business opportunities. It has been estimated that an industry worth in the region of £400 million a year has been created through their introduction. That industry is welcomed in this country by all concerned. However, small businesses could face thousands of pounds in fines because of their failure to register according to the rules. I should be grateful to know what the Government are doing to ensure that businesses, particularly small ones, understand when and whether they have to register and the implications of that registration.

I turn to computers. It has been estimated that between 28 and 93 per cent. of a computer, by weight, can be recycled, depending on the type. The problem for compliance is the erasing of the information on the hard drive. Many non-experts do not know that information cannot be fully erased from the hard drive without specialist software that guarantees full deletion. There are a lot of implications for data protection legislation and commercial confidentiality. I should be grateful to know how the Government are helping businesses in that respect.

Have the Government taken the cost of such software into account when calculating the regulatory impact assessment of the regulations? What steps have they taken to advise businesses of the implications of not fully erasing confidential data?

Does the hon. Lady think that it would be a good idea if all computers came with a disk that could wipe all the information? People sometimes want to change their computers for newer models. Some charities will transport their old ones to African countries and other developing nations, which will benefit from those computers.

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 non-governmental organisations 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 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.

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.

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?

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.

Follow that!

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.

You are very kind.

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.

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?

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.

Let me say something about reuse, which is related to sustainability. Some discarded appliances can be reused as whole appliances either here in the UK or possibly overseas. The WEEE regulations encourage such activity by allowing legitimate reuse to be included as evidence of producers discharging their obligations. That approach has been widely welcomed, and I am encouraged that many reuse organisations are building even stronger relationships with local authorities, their communities and producers to ensure that a piece of equipment that can be reused as whole is reused. In my borough of Croydon, I have seen that in action. There is an organisation that will take certain white goods, clean them up, repair them, make them fit for purpose and then sell them at reasonable cost, often to low-income groups. We need more schemes of that kind.

The UK waste management and treatment industry also has a key role in ensuring that the WEEE that is collected is treated, recovered and recycled in accordance with the regulations. The sector is rising to the challenge with 230 approved authorised treatment facilities in place and a number of significant new investments totalling more than £15 million throughout the UK announced since the WEEE regulations were made. The investment includes plants in south Wales, Bedfordshire, Kent and Birmingham that will be capable of handling in excess of an additional 250,000 tonnes of WEEE material.

On the reuse point, there can be genuine reuse and there can be warehousing or landfill disguised as reuse, regardless of whether the goods go abroad or are kept in this country. What measures will be taken by the Department of Trade and Industry or by anybody else to police reuse and ensure that it is genuine reuse rather than exploitive activity by some shoddy trader?

We are discussing that important matter with the environment agencies. All I can do is assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very concerned about it. If I can provide more information, I will write to him, if that is acceptable.

Let me say something about the position of consumers. The regulations are, of course, business regulations. They are aimed at ensuring that businesses that are part of the electrical waste problem are also part of the solution. However, we recognise that the engagement and support of consumers are crucial in securing an effective long-term solution to the problem of waste electrical equipment.

From 1 July, consumers will start to see changes in the information that is available to them when buying a new electrical product. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) made a point about communication. Consumers will be advised on how and where they can best discard their waste equipment to protect the environment. Indeed, I saw a leaflet in the Croydon branch of Currys only this past weekend. Because I am more shy than my colleagues, I shall not say what bit of electrical equipment I was buying at the time and I shall refuse any freedom of information requests. Actually, in case I raised false expectations, perhaps I should say that it was a radio.

Many consumers will be unaware of the significant contribution that they are already making. In fact, some 80 per cent. of electrical goods returned to local authority civic amenity sites are already being separately collected and treated: fridges and freezers, TVs and computer monitors, and fluorescent tubes because of existing hazardous waste legislation, and large household goods because of the value of their scrap metal content. We are doing better than many people think.

Before I make my closing comments, let me deal with some of the issues that were raised, notably about small businesses. The directive does not exempt small businesses from its requirements, so neither do the UK regulations. The Government have made extensive efforts to consult small businesses via their representative bodies. I was asked a question about this by the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry). As a result of the latest public consultation, the annual registration charge and the financial burdens for small producers have been addressed through a graduated-fee structure based on the turnover and VAT status of the business. The distributor take-back scheme offers an easy way for small distributors to comply with the regulations if they would find it difficult to perform in-store take-back. The scheme offers tiered membership charges for distributors.

There was a question about mobile phones. I am advised that the vast majority are already reused via schemes run by phone companies and retailers. Reuse is actively promoted by WEEE regulations, and the industry widely welcomed our approach to reuse, which would further support its activities to promote reuse.

Will the Minister give way on that point?

Yes, but may I just add this comment, which I believe the hon. Gentleman touched on? There is a scheme called “fonebak”, which is unfortunately spelt with an “f”. I hope that it is not a misspelling by my officials; we are not the Department that deals with education, but we do like high standards. The scheme is organised by The Carphone Warehouse and other major organisations and many of the phones are sent to the developing world.

Will the Minister talk to industry about plugs and interfaces because if there is a good technological reason for different interfaces, at least we will have asked the question? If companies talk to one another and have a common interface—even within a company—when we change our phones, we could keep the old plugs. That would do away with many of the drawers that are full of plugs that will otherwise be thrown away.

Indeed. Is the hon. Gentleman also calling for greater EU standardisation in relation to that?

No.

That would be a consistency too far, even for the hon. Gentleman—albeit environment in one nation. I will raise that issue with the producers because I, too, understand its importance.

I was asked about digital switchover, which we are obviously phasing in across the UK. The switch from cathode ray tubes to liquid crystal displays means that many traditional televisions—as we now think of them—have already been disposed of. I am advised that a study by my Department—now called the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform—and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the impact of switchover has indicated that there should not be an overall increase in volume, but that there may be a slight acceleration in disposal. That is certainly an issue of which we are very aware.

I was asked about security issues in terms of computers. I am advised that a number of professional businesses in the UK deal with waste information technology and communication equipment, including personal computers. We will certainly ask our new advisory body on WEEE to introduce recommendations on what, if any, further steps are needed to ensure that such data is protected as part of the new WEEE system.

I was also asked about individual producer responsibility. In an ideal world, one could say to the producer, “You are absolutely responsible for what you have produced”, and, as I have implied, that would make producers responsible. In the UK, we, along with many other member states, face difficulties in identifying practical, workable, solutions for the enforcement of individual producer responsibility. Again, as part of its remit, the new WEEE advisory board will be asked to examine individual producers’ responsibility and to make recommendations on how the system should be introduced here. I am advised that, for understandable technical reasons, no member state has a full workable system at the moment.

The hon. Member for Solihull asked me about a particular case that I think related to Benji’s—see I can pronounce it.

Llanidloes is the problem.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for helping me to emphasise a rather poor joke. I am advised that the hon. Lady did not refer to the WEEE regulations, but to regulations from our sister Department—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In any case, it would not be right for me as a Minister to comment on that in public, but I will pass on her concerns to colleagues in DEFRA.

The issue is at what point the return of a good, either because it is damaged or for no better reason than someone has decided that they do not want it, is designated as waste under the WEEE regulations. That is the fundamental problem experienced by the company that I mentioned. If I write to the Minister, I will be grateful he looks into this specific case.

I will, of course, be happy to do that.

I think that there is just one more point to cover, but we can check the record and if there are others, I will write to colleagues. I think that I was asked by the hon. Member for Wealden whether there is a like-for-like function and what the obligation is. That is a matter of equivalent functions, and whether, for example, a DVD player could be exchanged for a VCR. I hope that I have covered that, but I will write to the him to provide more information.

I will perhaps make a final point about charges for collection. Yes, companies can charge for collection, but there are different options for individuals who wish to dispose of waste electrical and electronic material. If there is in-store take-back, the store will by definition take the item back. If someone is buying a new white good, typically not all companies will charge, but they have an obligation. The consumer would be advised to shop around, and I hope that more companies will look critically at any charges that they levy. There is also a local authority system. If someone cannot take an item themselves to the local authority recycling centre, many local authorities offer a free service and will take away items a few times a year. There are different ways of tackling this issue, but I hope that companies will look self-critically at the charges.

We have had a useful debate; it is an interesting subject. Many issues relate to the processes involved in setting up new schemes. We will learn lessons and the system will not be 100 per cent. perfect in the early weeks. However, I do not recognise the term chaos in relation to the issue. Everyone expects schemes such as this to be chaotic as it makes a good headline, but I see no chaos, and I am not putting my hands over my eyes. What I do see is a scheme that has been delayed because we wanted to get it right. We are now getting it right and I am pleased about the way in which producers and the recycling industries are fully involved.

The scheme will create new commercially profitable industries and businesses in this country. Local authorities have risen to the challenge, but more consumers need to know about the scheme. The communication strategy will improve and more people will know about it. The scheme is a significant step away from the throw-away society of yesterday to a society that is led by consumers—our constituents—who want to be more responsible for the environment and recycling.

The sitting is suspended either until 12.30pm or until Mrs. Gilroy and the relevant Minister are present.