'(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy to meet Directive 2000/53/EC on end of life vehicles.

(2) The Secretary of State will establish by regulation that the original vehicle manufacturer is responsible for the cost of recycling the vehicle at the end of its life.

(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State must—

(a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London,

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate,

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

(5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Scottish Ministers,

(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and

(c) the Department of the Environment.'.—[Norman Baker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Norman Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 22—Strategies for meeting the End of Life Vehicle Directive: Scotland—

'(1) The Scottish Ministers must have a strategy to meet Directive 2000/53/EC on end of life vehicles.

(2) The Scottish Ministers will establish by regulation that the original vehicle manufacturer is responsible for the cost of recycling the vehicle at the end of its life.

(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Scottish Ministers must—

(a) consult the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency,

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate,

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate.

(4) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

(5) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and

(c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 23—Strategies for meeting the End of Life Vehicle Directive: Wales—

'(1) The National Assembly for Wales must have a strategy to meet Directive 2000/53/EC on end of life vehicles.

(2) The National Assembly for Wales will establish by regulation that the original vehicle manufacturer is responsible for the cost of recycling the vehicle at the end of its life.

(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Assembly must—

(a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency,

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.

(4) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

(5) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) the Scottish Ministers, and

(c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 24—Strategies for meeting the End of Life Vehicle Directive: Northern Ireland—

'(1) The Department of the Environment must have a strategy to meet Directive 2000/53/EC on end of life vehicles.

(2) The Department of the Environment will establish by regulation that the original vehicle manufacturer is responsible for the cost of recycling the vehicle at the end of its life.

(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Department must—

(a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales,

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.

(4) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

(5) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) the Scottish Ministers, and

(c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

New clause 25—Strategies for meeting the EU Waste Directives: England—

'(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy to meet the requirements of all existing and future EU Directives which relate to waste management policy and strategy.

(2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must—

(a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London.

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate,

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate.

(3) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1).

(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (3), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Scottish Ministers,

(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and

(c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 26—Strategies for meeting the EU Waste Directives: Scotland—

'(1) The Scottish Ministers must have a strategy to meet the requirements of all existing and future EU Directives which relate to waste management policy and strategy.

(2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Scottish Ministers must—

(a) consult the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency,

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate,

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate.

(3) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1).

(4) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (3), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and

(c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 27—Strategies for meeting the EU Waste Directives: Wales—

'(1) The National Assembly for Wales must have a strategy to meet the requirements of all existing and future EU Directives which relate to waste management policy and strategy.

(2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Assembly must—

(a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency,

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.

(3) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1).

(4) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (3), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) the Scottish Ministers, and

(c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 28—Strategies for meeting the EU Waste Directives: Northern Ireland—

'(1) The Department of the Environment must have a strategy to meet the requirements of all existing and future EU Directives which relate to waste management policy and strategy.

(2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Department must—

(a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales,

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.

(3) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1).

(4) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) the Scottish Ministers, and

(c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

New clause 31—Annual report to Parliament—

'The Secretary of State shall make an annual report to Parliament on the progress made towards encouraging and requiring the producers and manufacturers of goods and products to use processes and material that minimise packaging and facilitate the repair, reuse and recycling of their products.'.

New clause 37—Strategies for meeting the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive: England—

'(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy to meet Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment.

(2) The Secretary of State will establish by regulation that the original electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling the electrical equipment at the end of its life.

(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State must—

(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London,

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate,

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

(5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Scottish Ministers,

(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and

(c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 38—Strategies for meeting the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive: Scotland—

'(1) The Scottish Ministers must have a strategy to meet Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment.

(2) The Scottish Ministers will establish by regulation that the electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling the electrical equipment at the end of its life.

(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Scottish Ministers must—

(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency,

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate,

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate.

(4) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

(5) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and

(c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 39—Strategies for meeting the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive: Wales—

'(1) The National Assembly for Wales must have a strategy to meet Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment.

(2) The National Assembly for Wales will establish by regulation that the original electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling the electrical equipment at the end of its life.

(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Assembly must—

(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency,

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.

(4) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

(5) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) the Scottish Ministers, and

(c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 40—Strategies for meeting the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive: Northern Ireland—

'(1) The Department of the Environment must have a strategy to meet Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment.

(2) The Department of the Environment will establish by regulation that the original electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling the electrical equipment at the end of its life.

(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Department must—

(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales,

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate,

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.

(4) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

(5) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) the Scottish Ministers, and

(c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

New clause 41—Strategies for meeting the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste: England—

'(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy to meet Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste.

(2) The Secretary of State will establish by regulation that the original producers have mechanisms in place to facilitate the recovery and reuse of their packaging, and the recycling and recovery of packaging waste.

(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State must—

(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London,

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate,

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

(5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Scottish Ministers,

(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and

(c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 42—Strategies for meeting the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste: Scotland—

'(1) The Scottish Ministers must have a strategy to meet Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste.

(2) The Scottish Ministers will establish by regulation that the original producers have mechanisms in place to facilitate the

recovery and reuse of their packaging, and the recycling and recovery of packaging waste.

(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Scottish Ministers must—

(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency,

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate,

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate.

(4) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

(5) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) the National Assembly for Wales, and

(c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 43—Strategies for meeting the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste: Wales—

'(1) The National Assembly for Wales must have a strategy to meet Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste.

(2) The National Assembly of Wales will establish by regulation that the original producers have mechanisms in place to facilitate the recovery and reuse of their packaging, and the recycling and recovery of packaging waste.

(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Assembly must—

(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency,

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate.

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.

(4) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

(5) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Secretary of State.

(b) the Scottish Ministers, and

(c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 44—Strategies for meeting the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste: Northern Ireland—

'(1) The Department of the Environment must have a strategy to meet Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste.

(2) The Department of the Environment will establish by regulation that the original producers have mechanisms in place to facilitate the recovery and reuse of their packaging, and the recycling and recovery of packaging waste.

(3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Department must—

(a) consult with the relevant EU bodies, the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales,

(b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate.

(c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and

(d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate.

(4) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).

(5) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to—

(a) the Secretary of State.

(b) the Scottish Ministers, and

(c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

Norman Baker: It is absolutely imperative that when new directives are emerging from Brussels we examine the implications and make our representations as effectively and as early as possible. It is no good attempting to object when the debate is all over bar the shouting. I hope that the Minister agrees with that, because that is what the Secretary of State said in her speech to Water UK on 2 May 2002.

I mention that point because the Government's history of anticipating directives, implementing them and conforming with them has not been of the best. I am not trying to make a political point; I draw attention to the need to improve the way in which we approach EU directives. The Secretary of State also said that we have been forced to accept judgments and that we have under-implemented directives. She said that the lesson for the future was clear, and that we must engage in the discussion from the first, be more certain of what our commitments mean and play a full part in negotiating new directives. I entirely agree.

Our history has not been brilliant in that respect—I mention the word ''fridges'' but without expanding too much on it. The more general problem is that Parliament has not anticipated or scrutinised European legislation properly, although the former Leader of the House had been considering that issue. That has been a problem with environment legislation, especially waste legislation.

The Minister may know that a report in 2002 by the director of the European Commission directorate-general for the environment to members of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament indicated that the United Kingdom was in breach, through infringement, of more EU environmental directives than any of the other 16 member states. It said that 32 letters of warning had been sent, and that the Government had not properly responded, on matters as diverse as the labelling of dangerous substances, the release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, the protection of the health of workers and the general public against dangers arising from ionising radiation, the quality of water intended for human consumption, and so on.

New clauses 25 to 28 would require the Government to have a strategy for dealing with EU waste directives—limited to cover only waste, which the Minister is doubtless pleased about, but not related

to the EU landfill directive, which he is probably less pleased about. We need to anticipate what is coming down the line. I hope that the Minister accepts that we need to consider such matters rather more carefully. Those new clauses suggest a strategy for meeting EU waste directives, which would improve matters should the Government choose to accept them.

New clauses 21 to 24 deal with one waste stream that has not been dealt with effectively. Fridges were one example of that; abandoned cars are another. The EU end of life vehicles directive requires that 95 per cent. of scrap from vehicles is recycled by 2015, with the chemicals, gases and non-biodegradable parts being removed for dismantling at approved sites. It is a good directive, and I suspect that we are all in favour of it; but are we ready for it, and would the sort of strategy that I propose in other new clauses help?

I know from a ministerial answer given on 4 March 2003 that there were 238,000 abandoned vehicles in 2000–01. I calculate that one could fill the M25 more than once if all those abandoned vehicles were lined up there—including the new extra lanes that the Government are now having built. Why do we have such a huge number of abandoned vehicles every year? Partly because this country has implemented the EU directive by making a vehicle's final owner responsible for disposing of it. That is nonsensical in financial or common-sense terms: the average cost of disposing of a vehicle is £65, and that burden falls on the person who has it at the end of its life, when it is of little or no value. Surely it would be more sensible to create a system that enabled vehicles to be dealt with at the end of their life in a way that guaranteed that they would not be abandoned or burned out—20 per cent. of vehicles are burned out.

The present system is very costly: in 2000, the collection and disposal of all abandoned cars, according to my estimates, came to almost £23 million. In the same year, the cost of dealing with 81,612 burned-out cars was, according to the Home Office, £420 million. Those things do not come cheap. The Home Office report, ''The Economic Costs of Fire'' puts the cost of a single vehicle fire at £5,100. That means that the 70,000 abandoned vehicles set on fire in 2000 cost £357 million. I suspect that we shall see an increase in the number of abandoned vehicles on our roads, in our fields, and anywhere else where they can be placed.

There is a disused chalk pit outside Lewes. The last time I was there, it had 27 burned-out vehicles in it—it was a scene from ''Mad Max III''—a direct consequence of the failure to implement properly end of life vehicles directive.

The Minister might ask what the alternatives are. I can suggest three. One is a deposit scheme, similar to that which applies to bottles of beer from Harvey's of Lewes, which I referred to before. I have not forgotten my promise to bring the Minister a bottle of Harvey's beer. A person who buys a new car would pay a deposit, possibly including an element of bounty, which could be passed down to successive owners. The last could use the value of the deposit to pay for disposal.

The second option would be for an element of vehicle excise duty to be put into a fund and set aside for the collection of abandoned vehicles. People would pay their road tax every year. When they had finished with a car, they could ring the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, or whoever was responsible, and ask for it to be taken away. The road tax fund would cover that. The third option, which we are suggesting in the new clauses, is that the manufacturers could bear the cost; it could be reflected in the cost price of the vehicle. From 2008 onwards, the problem might be solved because manufacturers will be geared up to do that. However, there is a need for manufacturers—or someone—to deal with the problem now.

Those are my three suggestions for the short term. However, unless there is a change of Government policy, the mountains of fridges that are now disappearing will be joined by mountains of cars, fly-tipped all over the country and burned out, because the economic signals are wrong and the onus is on the last owner. The Government must change their policy now or, three or four years down the road, there will be a big mess. It is pointless to say that it will all be sorted out in 2008. I want to prevent the problem from continuing for the next five years; that is what the new clauses are designed to do.

Lastly, I support the Conservatives' new clauses in the grouping. New clause 31, tabled by the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and for Bexhill and Battle, seeks to introduce an annual report to be made to Parliament. While I am happy with the concept, the terms of the report are narrowly drawn; they should be wider. However, if pushed, we would support it.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman makes some sensible points about the increasing nuisance of vehicles that are abandoned across the country. Those of us who represent very rural constituencies find it especially galling that the cars that we find dumped along the roadside and in dykes and ditches in glorious Fenland, for example, do not originate from our area but are from surrounding towns and cities. They are very often hard to remove. At this very moment, there are several sites in my constituency with cars that have been dumped there for some time. It seems appropriate to consider these matters in the context of this discussion.

I have some doubt as to whether the hon. Gentleman's solution to that problem, as embodied in the new clause, is the right one. Do not misunderstand me: it is right that producers and manufacturers have a responsibility in this regard. However, I am not entirely sure that I would go along with the new clause in its current form. I accept that it has been tabled to open up the debate. I am sure that it is probing in a sense, although I am not sure that a new clause can ever be probing. I understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled it and why he has, quite properly, drawn the Committee's attention to it. However, for the purpose of opening up the discussion, it would be more valuable to ask the Minister to consider these matters more fully and to come back to the House than to provide a ready-made solution. This is a very complex area for all sorts of

reasons, not least because of the distribution chain and the volume of products involved, and we need to give it some thought. I put it no more strongly than that. It is appropriate to discuss it.

I take it that now is the time to discuss the other new clauses in the group, Mr. Amess. I believe that new clause 31 is straightforward. The hon. Member for Lewes described it as tightly drawn, or narrow or limited, but ''straightforward'' is a better way of describing it. It makes it clear that Parliament should have a role in scrutinising the progress that we make with manufacturers and producers in relation to the excessive amounts of packaging that are sadly becoming the norm, as you will know, Mr. Amess. You will feel just as strongly as I do, as you always feel as strongly about your constituents' interests in Essex as I do about mine in Lincolnshire. So much of that packaging finds its way into fly tips or into the traditional waste stream, and it is then difficult to deal with. For the most part, that is unnecessary.

A retailer in my constituency told me that he recalled that only a decade or two ago, furniture was frequently delivered with minimal amounts of packaging. When we move house, we cover our furniture in blankets and rope it to stop it moving about and being damaged. In that way, furniture was regularly delivered from the retailer to people's homes. These days, it is delivered with plastic, polystyrene, wood, wire, string and every sort of packaging imaginable, much of which the householder finds it most difficult to get rid of because of its size.

Dealing with furniture is not like dealing with food products, bad enough though they are. We debated those at great length earlier in our consideration of the Bill. The sheer size of the packaging makes it hard to dispose of it. I suspect that we all, as members of the Committee and as householders, have been in the same situation. That is just one example of where producers have changed the whole nature of waste—its style and volume. It is important, as new clause 31 suggests, that we scrutinise that as a Parliament, and that it is brought to our attention so that we can discuss it in order to serve our constituents effectively.

New clauses 37 to 44 deal with another crucial area—electric and electronic equipment waste. We are all aware of the enormous challenge that the EU directives have posed in this respect to householders and local authorities. I imagine that few of us have not over the past year or two had to dispose of a piece of electronic equipment such as a television, an old fridge or washing machine. The nuisance of those things hanging around and the chances of their finding their way into the wrong kind of waste stream—or simply a stream—are growing as obligations become greater.

We need a clearly defined strategy for dealing with that problem. The EU directive goes some way towards marking out that strategy, but the new clause encourages consultation and co-operation. In that sense it would help to achieve our shared objectives of dealing with electronic waste in an appropriate and sensible way. Finally, we seek to stiffen the provisions on packaging waste in new clauses 41 to 44.

I see that the Minister is about to intervene. For the sake of brevity and in view of the stage that we have reached in our proceedings, perhaps he will wait until he responds to the debate. Hon. Members may wish to make long speeches at the end of the sitting congratulating everyone and thanking you, of course, Mr. Amess.

There are so many new clauses simply because each deals with either electronic waste or packaging waste in each of the different parts of the United Kingdom. None of them is in any way at odds with what we have been discussing. They are all in balance, to use the term of the afternoon, and in harmony with what we are all trying to achieve. They simply draw particular attention to those areas that I feel require the fullest possible consultation, proper scrutiny and firm action. I hope that the Minister will agree that they might be helpful in that regard.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend has spoken at length and persuasively about all the new clauses so I shall be brief. I fully endorse his comments. I simply want to speak to new clause 31 as it stands in my name. It states:

''The Secretary of State shall make an annual report to Parliament on the progress made towards encouraging and requiring the producers and manufacturers of goods and products to use processes and material that minimise packaging and facilitate the repair, reuse and recycling of their products.''

It is a simple new clause. The hon. Member for Lewes may think that it is narrowly drawn. We do not need a big stick in the first instance; we need to excite public interest and to shine the spotlight of media attention. We need to create a debate in this place on that often overlooked part of the waste hierarchy, the producer's responsibility not to create so much of the blooming stuff in the first place. We must tap into that British quality of inventiveness and our excellence in pioneering new processes and technologies of which we are rightly proud.

Mr. Hayes: I merely intervene to stop my hon. Friend getting too worked up. His patriotic zeal was getting the better of him. I do not blame him for that. I want to regale him with a story about electronic equipment that I think will be helpful. A week or so ago my wife left three Hoovers outside our house to be collected by the collection authority. When she went to bed that night she noticed that one had disappeared. In the morning a second one had gone and before the waste collection authorities could arrive in the afternoon the third had gone too. That is recycling at its very peak. Whether they are being used or what they are doing, I neither know nor care. I am pretty certain that they have gone to good homes.

Gregory Barker: The Tory shadow Cabinet is famous for the nicknames of its Front Bench spokesmen. We have a ''Two Brains'' and now we have a ''Three Hoovers''. The mind boggles at the thought of a residence so vast that it requires three machines to clean it.

As I was saying, if only we could do more to shine the spotlight of media attention and public debate on these processes and innovations and encourage more of our great minds to apply themselves to the challenges of minimisation, we would be doing a great service. It would be a relatively low-cost measure to publish an annual report. The Government are never shy about publishing more and more bumf, so if they published a report to encourage this area of endeavour, that would meet with universal acclamation.

Mr. Meacher: The new clauses run to about a dozen pages, but they make one central point: that this country should be better prepared in respect of EU legislation. I agree.

I will say where we stand on the major issues that have been raised. The situation is a little better than has been suggested by some. New clauses 41 to 44 would require each country in the UK to have a strategy to meet the packaging and packaging waste directive. The new clauses are unnecessary because the requirements of the packaging directive have already been transposed into UK law through the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. Those require certain businesses to ensure that specified tonnages of recovery and recycling of packaging waste are carried out. The regulations create a cost incentive for business to reduce the amount of packaging that it uses, because the obligations are based on the tonnage of packaging that a business handles in a given year. That is already working; we are delivering.

The obligations took effect in 1998, and the recycling of packaging waste increased from 27 to 42 per cent. in 2001. I do not have the latest figures for 2002. The amount of packaging waste going to landfill fell from 6.9 million tonnes in 1998 to 4.8 million tonnes in 2001. I expect to see greater reductions than we have seen so far once the higher recycling targets in the next directive are in place. There is talk—that is what it is at the moment—about a recycling target of 60 to 65 per cent. operating in 2006, 2007 or 2008.

We have therefore begun to deliver, although I am the first to say that we should not be complacent. I receive many letters from aggravated and disgruntled constituents, sent via their Member of Parliament, about the amount of packaging waste. That is contrary to the impression given by the figures, but I suspect that it reflects the experience at the supermarket checkout, where people get not one bag, but two or three. I accept that we must do more to satisfy the public about minimising packaging waste, so I have asked the Advisory Committee on Packaging to provide me with proposals on that issue to feed into the work that my Department is doing on ways to achieve more minimisation and reuse of packaging.

Mr. Hayes: The Minister was coming to the point on which I wanted to intervene, and helpfully so. We have no doubt about the improvements in recycling. He wants to reach a better destination, but as he says we have made a start on the journey. We are really concerned about minimising packaging waste in the first place. New clause 31 is not about a report on how much is recycled, but about how much is produced. I

would be interested if the Minister had an answer now to this question. Against the background of the improved recycling figure, has he any empirical data on the amount of packaging waste that is produced? Is the trend getting better, getting worse or staying the same?

Mr. Meacher: I am not certain of the answer to that question, but I will certainly see that the hon. Gentleman receives it. Over the past five years or so, packaging manufacturers have responded to the Government's pressure on them to produce packaging that is more appropriate for the purpose—that is, smaller cartons or boxes and thinner glass containers to reduce the quantity as well as the weight and therefore the cost to the producer of that type of packaging. That has certainly happened, and markedly so, but I say to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that it can have perverse results. I said earlier in Committee that I am in favour of a deposit and return system. However, one of the problems with that is that glass containers have been thinned to such a degree that, in some cases, they will not withstand scrubbing with caustic soda. That is a problem if we are going to have a reuse policy, as opposed to the current plan, which is to ensure that packaging is reduced in size. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

Norman Baker: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Meacher: I will give way, but I am getting a little concerned.

Norman Baker: We are speaking to my amendments. The Minister will know that earlier in the Committee's discussions we talked about waste from fast food restaurants. After that discussion, I had a meeting with representatives of McDonalds at which they confessed that in other countries, including Germany, they provided their hamburgers in cartons made from card and other recyclable materials, instead of polystyrene. Why is it that they are able to get away with that practice here, and not in Germany?

Mr. Meacher: There is no reason for that. I am very keen to pursue that point. I had a meeting with fast food companies, particularly about the waste and litter that is generated around their stores and shops. I sought to get a code of practice put in place to reduce that. I accept that the containers could be changed in order to ensure that they are recyclable. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is a matter that I will be happy to pursue.

I turn to end-of-life vehicles, which the hon. Member for Lewes addressed. This is, of course, an important directive, and one that we are determined to implement properly for manufacturers, treatment industries and consumers. We are already well on the way to transposing the directive. As the hon. Member for Lewes said, it becomes operative in 2007, when producer responsibility on the car manufacturer kicks in. We are currently consulting on draft regulations to implement a number of articles in the directive. The responses to that consultation paper are due back on 6 June. We are in the middle of that consultation. There will be further consultation in due course on draft regulations covering the remaining articles in the

directive, including those relating to end-of-life vehicle recovery and reuse targets.

No decision has yet been reached on the design of the system for paying the cost of recycling vehicles at the end of their life. At the moment, attention is focused on what might be called an ''own marque'' approach to free take-back. That is the manufacturers' preferred option, and in line with the spirit of the new clauses, it would mean that manufacturers take responsibility for their own brand of end-of-life vehicles.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the effects of burned-out vehicles and abandoned vehicles, which certainly has been a widespread scourge over the last couple of years. We did, however, on 10 April 2002, introduce regulations that said that local authorities or the police could remove a vehicle of no value within 24 hours and destroy it. Where the vehicle had some value, it would be removed within seven days. My understanding is that, particularly with projects such as Operation Cubitt, which worked very successfully in Kent, Newham and the south-east, there has been a very large removal of abandoned vehicles. However, it still remains a problem.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the question of how one effects payment up until 2007 is an issue; who is responsible for that £50 or £60? We have used the same policy as in France and Germany, of placing the cost on the last user, but I am not saying that that is a justification. However, I recognise that there are serious problems in enhancing abandonment policy. We have tried to deal with that in other ways. The hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that there must be responsibility, either through a levy—he mentioned a road fund levy as one option—or by placing a responsibility directly on to the producer. The directive favours the latter approach.

New clauses 37 to 40 on the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive would also require that regulations are made to provide that the original electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling at the end of its life.

New clauses 37 to 40 on the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive would also require regulations to provide that the original electrical equipment manufacturers, distributors and importers are held responsible for the cost of recycling at the end of a product's life. We think that that is right, and we already have an implementation strategy for the directive. A broad-brush discussion paper on the directive was published on 28 March, and responses are due back by 30 May. It is the first phase of a three-stage consultation process—here we go again—as a more detailed consultation is due to be published in the autumn and a further consultation paper on the draft regulations in spring 2004.

New clauses 25 to 28, the final set, require that each area of the United Kingdom has a strategy to meet the requirements of all existing and future EU directives. That is obviously right, and that is exactly the strategy that we are adopting. [Interruption.] The hon.

Gentleman may express his reservations. As someone kindly said recently, when my heart is opened up, it will say ''fridges'' on it in the way that Mary had ''Calais'' on hers.

The problem with the fridges arose, as I never cease saying, because the Commission did not give us the relevant information until it was far too late. A regulation became operative throughout the EU on a particular day seven months before we had to implement it, and before we had the infrastructure in place. That was not our fault, but in this case, we have had several years to prepare. Although the WEEE directive does not come into force until September 2004, a clear strategy is in place, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that after what happened, the measures are being given a great deal of attention.

I make the point that the directives are not imposed by Europe. There is an impression that the continent is somehow imposing changes on the poor little UK, when in fact we are a leading member of the Council. We do not agree to the measures unless we believe they are right—and I believe that they are right—and the time scales, mechanisms and procedures for implementation are acceptable. We believe that these measures are right and acceptable. There is an established practice for consultation among Whitehall Departments, devolved Administrations, local government and industry to consider options for implementation, and I believe that it works. It helps to ensure that directives are transposed accurately and in the most appropriate way for the UK.

My final point is about new clause 31, which would require the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament on progress towards encouraging and requiring producers and manufacturers to minimise packaging and facilitate the repair, reuse and recycling of their products. I agree with that thrust, but annual reports are already made to industry and others by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the progress of the requirements in the packaging regulations. The packaging, ELV and WEEE directives require the UK to report to the Commission on their implementation. We also publicise initiatives on waste, such as the existing voluntary producer-responsibility agreement with newspaper publishers, which encourages them to recycle their product. As I already mentioned, we are discussing similar agreements with producers of junk mail and magazines.

In other words, the Government collect the information required in the new clause, and it is made available. The new clause adds only that there should be a formal report to Parliament, which would involve more printing and work by officials when the information is already available and can be used if the official Opposition or other parties want to have a debate. That is adequate; the figures are monitored and the Government can be held to account on the basis of the information collected.

I hope that, with that lengthy explanation, hon. Members will be content not to press the new clauses further. I take the message, and the Government reinforce it—

Mr. Hayes rose—

Mr. Meacher: Before the peroration, I will give way.

Mr. Hayes: The key points are that the new clauses would restore the emphasis on producer responsibility. The Bill is about recycling, reuse and the responsible use of waste, but I emphasise again, as I reach the end of my remarks on these important provisions—[Interruption.] I do apologise, Mr. Amess—that may have been a call from McDonald's hamburgers, although I hope not. I emphasise again that unless we deal with the problem at source, all our efforts may come to naught, which is why the amendment is producer-oriented.

Finally, the large-scale waste that I described—electrical equipment and large-scale packaging—is very hard for householders and quite hard for collection authorities to deal with. That is a problem in small rural communities. It was mentioned to me when I visited Gedney recently, and I said that I would raise the matter with the Minister in this Committee. I hope that he will focus on that large-scale waste, which includes plastics such as polystyrenes.

Mr. Meacher: That point is fair, and the hon. Gentleman can faithfully and honestly say to his constituents that he has raised it—they can make sure that he has done so. We are making a great deal of progress in reducing both the amount of packaging that goes to landfill and the quantities that are used. However, I would be the first to say that we have not satisfied the public and that we need a step change in the handling of packaging in this country. I sympathise with the views of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn on the basis of the Government's acceptance of the general point that underlies the debate.

Norman Baker: On the basis of good will and the Government's acceptance that what we said was, by and large, accurate, and that they should do something about it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.New clause 30Zero waste strategy