(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging.
This is particularly relevant to pubs and breweries, but the EPR scheme extends wider than that sector. I thank Tata Steel, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, British Glass and the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association for their engagement.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, EPR for packaging is one of the key issues raised with me over the past year. The challenges presented by this policy were highlighted many times during the beer group’s inquiry earlier this year. The industry is affected by a wide range of policy requirements across almost all Government Departments. The cumulative impact of these policies and regulations is taking its toll—it is stunting growth, and growth is what our country needs. The Chancellor used the word nearly 50 times in yesterday’s Budget speech, so I know it is important to this Government. In securing this debate, I want to share some of the EPR issues that have been raised with us by the beer sector, and hopefully move them closer to resolution, to help businesses grow once more.
What is extended producer responsibility? It is a major new UK packaging obligation that applies to brand owners and importers of all packaging that could end up in household waste streams. Fees became payable on 1 April 2025. They are in the form of pounds-per-tonne rates for all the main packaging materials: cardboard, plastic, paper and glass. There are some exemptions for very small producers. These fees will raise £1.4 billion to pay local authorities for the collection, management, recycling and disposal of household packaging waste.
Nobody can disagree that the idea of EPR appears to be brilliant. First, the polluter pays, with the businesses that put the packaging on the market bearing the associated environmental and societal costs. Secondly, it is an incentive for companies to design products that are more durable, reusable and easier to recycle. Thirdly, it is meant to promote a circular economy in which packaging is kept in use for as long as possible, minimising waste going to landfill. That all sounds great, but unfortunately the reality for businesses, particularly independent pubs and breweries, is very different.
Laura James, from Gower brewery in my constituency, says that the introduction of EPR means the business has never had so much money going out the door. She fears that EPR requirements—on top of the increases to beer duty, the national minimum wage and national insurance contributions—could be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back. Such independent breweries, which are the lifeblood of communities like mine in Gower, may be forced to close.
Laura talked me through the day-to-day impact of EPR on the business. Every six to eight weeks, it gets a delivery of empty glass bottles, and it uses around half a million every year. Since the EPR requirements came in this April, its supplier has added £5,000 to the delivery, which means the brewery now has to find around an extra £45,000 every year, just for the bottles.
The British Beer and Pub Association, which represents the industry, says that brewers and pubs are struggling, and that the EPR fees for glass packaging are far too high, costing brewers nationwide around £124 million a year. My first ask of the Government is that EPR fees for glass are reviewed. They currently work out at around 6p extra per bottle.
Gower brewery says that, in an ideal world, it would move away from glass to cans, but that requires investment, which is money it just does not have. Alternatively, it would create a bottle deposit scheme, but that also requires money. It would need to rent a warehouse to store the empties, buy numerous bottle-washing machines and pay additional staff to facilitate it all. Added to that, it could not guarantee the integrity of the second-hand bottles—that they would be 100% safe to drink from. That is why pubs and breweries say it is vital that glass fees are made fairer and more sustainable.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very good point. The famous Griffin brewery is in my constituency, as is Fuller’s, with its substantial on- and off-trade. We all want to see recycling increase, but there is the issue of fees and whether it will involve the use of materials that are less recyclable than glass, which is an important manufacturing tool for the brewing industry.
Tonia Antoniazzi
My hon. Friend is right. I am quite jealous that he has all those wonderful breweries in his patch. The pub and brewing sector is fantastic, and I really enjoy working with it, but I know how hard it is finding things and how it is striving to get to net zero. It wants to be part of this conversation and part of the solution. I take my hat off to that excellent sector.
Secondly, the sector would welcome a quick resolution from Government on the double charging issue, which the British Beer and Pub Association says is costing pubs and breweries nationwide an additional £50 million a year. They pay the EPR charge passed on by suppliers as well as their existing commercial waste disposal fees for the same items, including beer and wine bottles or food containers that never leave their premises. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has agreed that double charging is unfair and against the intentions of the policy. It has suggested that the earliest it can be rectified is 2028, but that is three years from now.
This issue needs to be resolved as soon as possible or smaller breweries such as Gower brewery will go under. Double charging means that not only does Gower brewery pay more to suppliers for its bottles and packaging, it pays Swansea council for its commercial waste collection. A simple clarification from Government would help the industry: the beer sector would like DEFRA to amend its guidance to provide more flexibility on how producers can account for EPR fees. As currently drafted, the rules prevent producers from accounting for the accrual of EPR payments across a 12-month period, which means that businesses are having to absorb the hit in one go in April.
On a positive note, there is no doubt that the pub and brewing sector and wider hospitality share the Government’s ambitions for well-designed schemes to reduce packaging, increase recycling rates and build a functional circular economy. However, on a practical level, it is proving difficult. As well as the increased packaging fees, there are additional admin costs related to the time needed to fulfil EPR requirements. Laura from Gower brewery explained that every item of packaging has to be weighed and logged on a portal, from the bottle to the cardboard tray it is packed in and the plastic it is wrapped in. Each business it supplies has a separate portal, making it a lengthy task.
There is also future uncertainty for businesses, which is not good for jobs or growth. For example, Laura is concerned about how each supermarket will approach EPR in the coming months. What if, say, Tesco decides that it wants her brewery to abandon plastic wrapping in favour of a cardboard box? Gower brewery would then have to find space for lots of flat-packed boxes. That uncertainty is shared by the whole sector, particularly because of the delayed confirmation of the final level of fees required under EPR and the retrospective nature of charging. Those two issues have made it extremely difficult for businesses to plan and to understand the level of investment needed to meet the new obligations.
An urgent solution must be found to the double charging issue, which is unfairly placing additional costs on pubs. If a long-term solution is not possible until 2028 at the earliest, some form of interim measure would go part of the way to addressing the issue. A review of the fees for glass is necessary. They are too high and could have unintended consequences that would cause an increase in the use of less recyclable packaging materials such as plastic. It would also be helpful if DEFRA amended its clarifying guidance to provide more flexibility on how producers can account for EPR fees so that they do not have to absorb the hit in one go in April.
I welcome the opportunity to raise this issue for the pub and brewing sector, which has faced tough economic headwinds. These increased costs for businesses will inevitably impact the price of food and drink for consumers and the cost of living. The Government estimate that in the region of 85% of the cost of EPR will be passed on to consumers.
It is also worth noting that EPR is only one part of a complex packaging regulation landscape—I know the Minister is aware of that—which includes the plastic packaging tax, packaging recovery notes, regulation on single-use plastic items, and the forthcoming deposit return scheme. Consistency of policy across the four nations of the UK is crucial. The Welsh Government propose to keep glass as part of their DRS, whereas that is not the case for the rest of the UK.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue in Parliament. The pub and brewing sector has faced a bit of a battering from policies in the last year. I thank the Minister for listening, and I look forward to what she has to say about EPR.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. If Members can keep their speeches to five minutes, everyone should get in. I call Will Forster.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Thank you, Ms Lewell; I will endeavour to keep to five minutes. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this timely debate so soon after the Budget.
As the hon. Lady said, there is growing concern about the extended producer responsibility scheme. I call it the “glass bottle tax” if I am trying to explain it to a constituent I am having a drink with in one of Woking’s pubs, because they do not get EPR. They understand that it is a glass bottle tax, but they do not get the reasoning behind it.
EPR is intended to reduce waste and increase recycling, which are aims that we all probably share. However, the scheme risks hurting our economy, and especially the hospitality sector, which has suffered so much during the covid pandemic and the cost of living crisis. That is especially true in my constituency. We are proud to have 34 pubs and one brewery—Thurstons in Horsell. We are also home to the brewing giant Asahi, which owns and operates Fuller’s brewery in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), which I have had the pleasure of visiting—in my opinion, it counts as a constituency visit.
I am very glad to have Thurstons and Asahi, and I am very glad that Woking has a thriving hospitality community, but it is under threat. The hospitality industry supports over 2,000 jobs and contributes £131 million to our economy, yet the glass bottle tax will impose more than £150 million in new costs on brewers for glass packaging alone. At a time when businesses are struggling with inflation, energy prices and higher taxes, that additional burden will deter investment and put jobs at risk.
Will the Minister commit to reviewing EPR fees in the light of decisions announced at yesterday’s Budget? The fact that beer duty is rising in line with inflation will have an impact, and will add yet another cost at a time when hospitality is already under pressure. Brewers and pubs tell me that they cannot absorb both. The continued effect of higher beer duty, which is way out of kilter with our European neighbours, and EPR charges will inevitably reduce investment and will add to the growing trend of pubs and hospitality venues being closed down.
The Government cannot tax their way to growth. There are serious issues with double charging. Although EPR is meant to apply only to household waste, many pubs already pay for commercial waste collection. Despite that, the sector faces £60 million in costs, with some larger pubs paying as much as £2,000 more each year.
DEFRA has accepted the flaw but does not have a plan to correct it until year three of the scheme. That is not acceptable, and pubs cannot afford to wait that long. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what steps the Government will take now to prevent businesses from paying twice for the same waste. Will paying twice be backdated when the charges are introduced in year three?
The Office for Budget Responsibility has classified EPR as a tax, which adds further uncertainty to brewers and pub owners. Without clear guidance on reporting and future fees, businesses cannot plan, invest and expand. At a time when our economy needs stability, that uncertainty threatens growth, which is one of the Government’s key drivers.
The Liberal Democrats have proposed a 5 percentage point VAT cut on hospitality because we feel that we need to support the hospitality sector, particularly to compensate for EPR. Even if only half of that VAT cut were passed through, the average household would save £135 by April 2027. The remaining benefit would help businesses to stay open, protect jobs and support wages. We know that for a fact as we saw it with the 2008 VAT reduction, at least 52% of which was passed on to customers.
Our goal should be support responsible environmental reform while protecting pubs, breweries and the hospitality sector. They hold our British communities together, and they are a big part of the British way of life. Like the hon. Member for Gower, I urge the Minister to listen to the industry. Will the Government address the risks of double charging in our economy? Can they provide clarification on fees? Will the Minister work with Cabinet colleagues to reduce the harm to the brewing and hospitality sector?
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this important debate.
I am co-chair of the APPG on food and drink, and my constituency is in the heart of the logistics corridor, so it will be no surprise to Members that I have been inside a warehouse or two and that packaging is something I talk about a lot with my businesses. I recently visited Graphic Packaging International’s site at Bardon and saw at first hand the changes it is already making to food and drink packaging to reduce its environmental impact. The company has been innovating with packaging to transition products that are harder to recycle to ones made of more sustainable materials.
The company recognises that extended producer responsibility is an important step forward in the way organisations and consumers respond to the environmental challenges of packaging, but also that it increases costs for consumers. As an international company, it also told me that the lack of consistency in approach across the UK and Europe has the potential to stifle innovation in packaging, and that the costs of EPR in the UK have been a barrier to transitioning to the more environmentally friendly packaging that is used in the European Union. It pointed out that plastic is lighter than fibrous materials, so there is a risk that the fee structure could inadvertently reduce the use of more sustainable materials.
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that challenge regarding the fee structure for different materials and the costs of implementing recycling. The company gave me a small example: a pack of six cans in a supermarket can be wrapped in plastic or held together by card; the card is not only more expensive to deliver but, because of its weight, more expensive under EPR. The company wants us to look at that issue and see whether it is sustainable in the long term for the better choice to be more expensive.
One of Britain’s biggest exports is waste, and British recycling has flatlined. The successful implementation of EPR has the potential to reverse that worrying trend, but we have to keep an eye on cost. There is undoubtedly room for change, and the funding opened up by the fees will allow more investment to explore recycling alternatives. I recently visited Recycleye, an organisation that is using technology and artificial intelligence to improve the recycling of Tetra Pak materials. That is a long way from the vision of the commingled materials recycling centre, and it has the potential to recycle more of the materials that are sent for sorting.
Customers want to change their habits and feel like they are doing their bit to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. That brings me to the launch of a really positive project that was pulled together by industry, which wants to change and do the right thing. The Flexible Plastic Fund’s FlexCollect project ran a pilot in 10 local authorities—including mine, North West Leicestershire—that aimed to understand how to collect and recycle flexible packaging, from bread bags to crisp packets, confectionary packaging and food pouches. Flexible plastic packaging itself is generally a resource-efficient material: it is lightweight and can play a role in protecting food from becoming waste. It represents nearly a quarter of all UK consumer packaging, but the system for recycling it in the UK is fragmented. I would like to hear from the Minister how we are going to resolve some of the challenges related to all the materials we are using and recycling centres.
What was really interesting about the pilot is that participating households were so surprised by the amount of recycling that they could put in their bags. These kinds of projects are really useful, and the extended producer responsibility funding should be used for them, but we must also listen to the concerns of industry. Will the Minister undertake a full assessment of industry concerns about how fees for the scheme have been calculated, and of how money collected will increase recycling at the kerbside without pushing too much cost on to the businesses that deliver the packages?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for setting the scene so well, as always.
EPR is a UK-wide strategy aimed at addressing issues with waste and improving recycling. I often give a Northern Ireland perspective, and we are part of this because the EPR applies to Northern Ireland too. We have been doing our best with our local councils to encourage better recycling strategies and to get our waste management under control. EPR is a decent and progressive strategy that aims to do that. It is good to be here to give a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate, as always.
In Northern Ireland, recycling rates vary wildly between councils. I am pleased that Ards and North Down council has taken significant steps to improve waste figures across the borough where I live. Northern Ireland households produce some 1 million tonnes of waste annually, with packaging a substantial fraction of that. Before I was elected to Parliament, I was in the Assembly and on the council back home. I am going to age myself by saying that I remember when the council brought in recycling, with the introduction of the blue bins. I was not quite sure what it meant, and neither were my constituents, but now we are all focused on what we can recycle. I have my son, daughter-in-law and two grandchildren staying with me—wee Freya is seven and wee Ezra is three. At that age, they know what is to be recycled. It is incredible that at that age they are working for the future. Whenever granddad goes to put something in the bin, if I have not put it in the right bin they will tell me which the right bin is—out of the mouths of babes and sucklings does the wisdom flow.
Under EPR many producers in Northern Ireland that were previously outside heavy regulation must register and report packaging data. It is important that we have the data, because that is how we can show improvements. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has suggested that many smaller businesses were unaware of or confused by the guidance around EPR, and sometimes that is the case.
I have three asks for the Minister. I welcome her to her place—I should have done that earlier; I apologise. I think we all know that she is totally committed to this, so we will get very helpful answers later in the debate. On the financial costs—packaging fees and the cost of compliance schemes, for example—small businesses often have limited liquidity. It is important that we make that point. Even modest annual EPR fees can cause strain if margins are tight or the volume of packaging is not the same. That needs to be looked at, to ensure that small businesses are not forced into closure because they cannot keep up with EPR costs. Will the Minister ensure that we can work alongside small businesses and navigate the roles that they have to play within the financial restrictions that they have?
I think of the small businesses in my constituency, which are the backbone of the community. I would hate to think that the transitional support is not there to guide them through this change, so I again ask the Minister to make sure that that support is there; I know that she has discussions with DAERA in Northern Ireland. Government must make allowances and ensure that the EPR process is as accessible as possible.
Recent data show that UK households produced around 5.6 million tonnes of packaging waste in 2023—a massive environmental burden—due to single-use packaging and over-packaging. This scheme shifts the cost of dealing with vast quantities of packaging waste from local councils and taxpayers to the producers who generate the waste in the first place, but there are also concerns about whether our recycling and waste management infrastructure is ready to cope with the increased volumes and the more stringent sorting. We have reached targets, but we want to do better, and we need a wee bit of Government help to ensure that that gets across.
There is a proportion of businesses, including some in Northern Ireland, facing disproportionate burdens under EPR, from increased costs to reporting complexity. The Government need to work alongside DAERA and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that there is a pathway to accessibility and that the viability of our small businesses is not undermined. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Gower for raising the issue today, and I look forward to engaging further. I know the Minister will engage with us all, and with the Assembly, and that is really important.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It is a delight to take part in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on initiating it. I back everything she said about glass, which affects Felinfoel brewery in my constituency very badly, as well as Parsons Pickles, which produces shellfish and pickled vegetables. Because of the time limit, I may not have time to say much more about glass, because I also want to talk about steel.
Steel is hugely important to me. I have the Tata Trostre packaging factory in my constituency. It is the only steel packaging factory in the UK, and it currently produces 400,000 tonnes of packaging steel each year, supports 5,000 jobs across the country in the supply chain and contributes £4 billion to the UK economy. It produces a whole range of different qualities of steel, which can be used to make the various parts of food and drink cans, with slightly different qualities and strengths for the base, body, ring pull and so on.
Steel is one of the most recyclable materials we have; in fact, it is the most recycled packaging in Europe. In 2024, steel packaging achieved an 86.6% recycling rate, making it the UK’s most recycled packaging material. The recycling rate for plastic is only 53%, and for fibre-based cartons it is 29%. Of course, we can go on and on recycling steel—it can be recycled forever. The fees under the EPR scheme should reflect that quality; the ability for a material to be recycled over and over again is valuable. Currently, the EPR values metal the same as materials that can only be recycled once, and then into something less recyclable or even unrecyclable and of much lower value. Recycling steel can also save 70% of the energy that would be needed to produce new steel.
Food cans are also very easy to sort. I was going to say that even a child can do it, but even an adult can easily understand in which bin, or which part of a segregated kerbside collection, a can should go. We all know that is not the case for alternative forms of packaging, which can be made of complex layers of different materials. Is it paper? Is it plastic? Is it foil? What is it? Likewise, mechanical sorting of steel is easy.
Another quality of steel is that it is incredibly strong, so it can be four times thinner than competing containers. Unfortunately, that also makes it two times heavier, and that is where we get punished under the EPR fees. However, in her reply to me in June, the Minister mentioned that volume is also a factor—and think about the volume of some of the fancy doo-dah packaging all over the place. We need to come back to that, because some other forms of packaging do not do well on volume, and they certainly do not do well on recyclability, not to mention the worry about them being made abroad cheaply and brought over here. We have enough challenges in the steel industry as it is, as I am sure the Minister will be aware.
We have a fantastic material in steel. Of course, it has been a very difficult time for steel in south Wales. Trostre has traditionally been supplied by Port Talbot, where the last blast furnace was closed before the electric arc furnace was built. We are very much looking forward to the opening of the electric arc furnace, which is a fantastic recycling asset, and a lot of work is being done to ensure that we will be able to use the EAF steel for the range of products produced at Trostre. In the meantime, though, that brings the added pressure of having to source steel elsewhere, as well as our usual challenges of a highly competitive market and energy costs. I very much welcome the Government’s announcement of some support on the way for energy intensive industries.
The current EPR fee methodology does not recognise recyclability or material value. Instead, it prioritises material weight, meaning heavier but more sustainable materials such as steel and glass face higher fees, while lighter, less recyclable plastics gain a competitive edge.
The issues that I want the Minister to focus on strongly are: action as soon as possible, or we are going to lose our industries; and a reform of EPR fees to reward genuine recyclability and circular value. The basic fees per tonne for steel need to be three times lower than for fibre composite or plastic alternatives. We absolutely must differentiate by end-of-life outcomes and the scrap value, which would, again, bring the UK model into line with some of the best EU practice, such as the Belgian system.
If we are not careful, between the EPR and high excise duty, we could discourage investment in the UK because firms will want to set up plants elsewhere. We will deter the growth that we all want to see.
There is a huge amount to do. I would like to know what engagement there has been with stakeholders since the letter of 7 June, what stage that engagement is now at, and whether any progress has been made. I will finish on that note.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this debate.
I come at this issue from a slightly different angle. In my constituency of Runcorn and Helsby, I have an incredibly impressive business, Encirc, one of the largest glass manufacturers in the UK. I have had the pleasure of visiting the factory and meeting the impressive team. It employs 1,000 people. Quite rightly, as the Member of Parliament for Runcorn and Helsby, it is my responsibility to do everything I can to protect jobs there.
Encirc is owned by Vidrala, which is looking at a £500 million investment in Encirc, which is so important for the north-west and for the UK. It is now reassessing that £500 million investment because of this tax, which is unfairly penalising glass as a material. I have jobs and investment at risk in my constituency.
On the impact of the EPR, first, the proposed level of the EPR for glass in this country is the highest of such schemes in the world. In Germany, for example, glass is cheaper than any other material for use in bottles. I ask the Minister to please reassess the level of fees for glass as a material.
Secondly, I want to point to the potential impact on manufacturing jobs and businesses. The 120,000 jobs in the glass manufacturing industry nationally are potentially affected, and could be endangered with these increased costs. The EPR is already causing significant business damage, leading to falling revenues in the UK glass manufacturing sector, primarily in the north of England.
Customers of my glass manufacturer are already switching to less environmentally friendly products. That is what does not make sense about the way that the Government have calculated the fees. Customers are switching to plastics or cans; glass is infinitely recyclable and those materials are not. From an environmental point of view, it just does not make sense.
There is a disproportionate burden on glass. Glass will bear £500 million of the £1.5 billion cost to businesses of this EPR in the current fee format, despite being less than 5% of total packaging in the UK. It is totally disproportionate, and penalises glass manufacturers.
The solution that I ask the Minister to look at is, first, urgently changing the inaccuracies in the current fee methodology, which includes glass having an inaccurately low value in EPR, inflating the EPR price. Secondly, would she please look at recalculating the fees based solely on volume, not weight, as soon as possible, to ensure that glass producers and users are not being unfairly penalised to the benefit of plastics and cans? We must act now to avoid further material switching by customers.
To summarise, I ask the Minister to look at moving from a weight-based fee calculation, which penalises glass and favours less environmentally friendly plastics and cans, to a volume-based fee calculation. In Runcorn and Helsby, 1,000 jobs and £500 million of investment are at risk.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing the debate.
EPR, at its base, is a tax on recycling. Recycling is devolved in Wales, and we would not normally speak on devolved issues as Plaid Cymru spokespeople, but today, I am making an exception, because several local businesses have asked me to highlight the cost to their businesses and to obtain clarity. One such business, Evan Evans, is a small local brewery that produces the best-quality beer in Llandeilo, which is in my constituency. The owner of Evan Evans, Simon Buckley—a direct descendant of the family behind the famous Buckley’s Brewery, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith)—stated:
“I have seldom felt more demoralised than now. The outlook in Wales for a small brewery is not good. Wages bills are going through the roof, and were it not for the fact that we celebrate 260 years of family brewing in Wales in 18 months’ time, I would shut up shop.”
Those are damning words.
Rural breweries and small and medium-sized enterprises that employ local people within their communities will feel the cost of EPR the most. These businesses are the backbone of our Welsh tourist sector. Where, locally, is the alternative employment? In my constituency of Caerfyrddin, farming has been hit, contractors are working within calendar dates, national insurance contribution hikes have meant that many young people cannot find alternative work, and as we all know, hospitality is on its knees.
Extended producer responsibility—phased in during 2023, and officially published as legislation in 2024—means that businesses have to report their packaging use, pay fees and purchase packaging waste recovery notes. The prices fluctuate based on supply and demand for recyclable materials—glass, plastic or cardboard—so businesses face cost variability. Previously, if someone’s turnover was less than £2 million or they had less than 50 tonnes of packaging a year, they were exempt, but that has all changed. If they manufacture, import or fill packaging that ends up with consumers, they may be responsible. If they supply packaged goods under their own brand, they may be responsible. If they import packaging products into the UK for sale, they may be responsible. The last one does not affect the manufacturing businesses within my constituency, but the first two do.
As the hon. Member for Gower mentioned, businesses do not mind paying their share, but the lack of clarity between the two ends of the M4 makes it difficult for businesses to prepare and analyse the cost effectively. I say that while acknowledging that Wales has the best recycling rates in the UK; indeed, we are second in the world, with only Austria above us. We want to keep it that way, so we need to work with our businesses. My ask to the Minister is that all Governments speak to each other to get the clarity that my businesses and constituents deserve.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this important and timely debate, and on her excellent speech. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s desire to make manufacturing and packaging more sustainable, minimise waste and create the foundations for a truly circular economy. Limiting the environmental damage caused by waste requires us to improve our recycling of packaging. However, progress on recycling has been much slower than it needs to be, making it even more vital that we prioritise rethinking how packaging is made and processed.
The extended producer responsibility has the potential to be a key driver in securing a better circular solution for packaging waste. However, its implementation must support, rather than add additional burdens to, the producers expected to deliver it. Liberal Democrats have long been calling for a deposit return scheme for single-use drinks containers as it would obviously improve recycling levels and environmental standards, yet the current approach to EPR raises significant unease about the unpredictability of escalating costs for producers. That will particularly impact the financial viability of many independent businesses across the country, putting their future viability at risk.
As a party, we recognised that the previous system was not fit for purpose following the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry, and supported its recommendations to incentivise better recyclability and transparency of products to help the transition to a circular economy. The reform brought forward by DEFRA will alter the way that local authorities are required to manage household recycling. It is therefore important that local authorities’ role in the scheme is supported, as they are once again being asked to do more while receiving ever-decreasing levels of funding from central Government. With the EPR packaging payment scheme having started last month, the Government have estimated that the shift in cost from local authorities to producers will total over £1.2 billion in its first year.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to reinvest that revenue to improve local recycling infrastructure during EPR’s first year. However, EPR currently lacks a mechanism to ringfence funds and ensure that they are all invested in that infrastructure. Despite PackUK having informed local authorities that they will receive lower payments for a failure to do so, there is great concern within industry that, in future, funds will be redirected to replace central Government spending, threatening the Government’s ultimate ambitions for EPR. Without a firm guarantee to ringfence a certain percentage of funds to be invested in local recycling services, Somerset council, where the Liberal Democrats are now clearing up the mess after 14 years of Conservative maladministration and which, like many local councils, is facing financial difficulty, will be unable to achieve its goal of increasing the county’s recycling rate to 60%.
I am fortunate to represent a constituency with a thriving food and drink sector. Businesses in Glastonbury and Somerton contribute over £29 million annually to our rural economy, supporting 101 pubs and providing employment for over 1,200 constituents. However, the introduction of the EPR in its current form has the potential to erode the profit margins of those vital businesses, forcing them to raise their prices beyond the point their customers can afford, risking the viability of their businesses.
Those concerns have been repeatedly echoed by local brewers and distillers such as Glastonbury Brewing Company and Somerset Spirit in Castle Cary, which, like many others, are having to grapple with serious financial pressures as a consequence of the Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions and rising business rates, in addition to EPR.
I remain concerned about the negative impact that the current approach to EPR will have on our hospitality sector, in particular our pubs. Glastonbury and Somerton, as I have just said, is home to a wide and thriving publican community. Those pubs are more than just businesses; they are important pillars of our towns and villages. They bring residents together, create jobs and drive rural growth. A leading example that springs to mind is Curry Mallet’s community pub, the Bell Inn, whose existence has always relied on the generosity of its local community. I pause here to congratulate the community group involved in reopening the Bayford Inn, formerly known as the Unicorn, as a community-run pub in Wincanton, and to wish it every success.
The introduction of EPR may become, as UKHospitality has identified, “a margin killer” for the sector. DEFRA’s approach to EPR has been designed to make businesses responsible for the waste packaging that enters the household recycling stream, but in the case of pubs, their packaging and bottles never leave their premises and they are disposed of through private waste contracts. Consequently, pubs now face a double charge for packaging waste—once through their commercial waste disposal contracts and again through EPR charges having increased the cost of supplies from producers—because the current framework does not exempt non-household waste streams. That means that rural pubs, such as the Catash Inn in North Cadbury, now face being burdened with further charges of up to £2,000 a year because of EPR, adding to the crippling costs being levied against them. As a result, the Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to consider exempting pubs from EPR and allowing time to review the scheme’s scope and timeline. That would, I hope, avoid further damage to our already struggling hospitality sector.
As I have mentioned many times in this place, the UK cider industry is one of our nation’s most distinctive and successful manufacturing sectors, rooted in our rural economy. In the south-west, the cider industry contributes more than £270 million a year to the regional economy, supports more than 5,700 jobs and sustains numerous family farms, with Somerset—of course—the historical and spiritual home of British cider making. My constituency is home to a number of excellent cider makers, including King Brain cider in Little Weston, Tricky Cider in Low Ham and Harry’s Cider in Long Sutton, in addition to wonderful orchardists such as Julian, Diana and Matilda Temperley of Burrow Hill cider farm, who have cultivated their orchards for many decades.
Cider makers are generally pretty supportive of a greater circular economy. However, the charges that DEFRA confirmed in June of this year are a real threat to our cider producers, because glass packaging is charged at £192 per tonne, which is one of the most expensive rates in Europe. Given that context, small and independent cider makers are having to decide whether they can continue to use glass to package their produce in the future and keep their businesses viable at the same time. For cider makers in my constituency, that fee equates to about 5p for a 500 ml bottle of cider, and up to 12p for a 750 ml bottle.
Although EPR is intended to promote sustainability, the way it has been implemented will have detrimental financial impacts on independent cider producers who use entirely recyclable packaging and, ironically, could result in them pivoting to use a less environmentally friendly material such as plastic, which has a lower fee, to avoid those exorbitant costs. The introduction of EPR in its current form, when combined with rising employment, energy and raw material costs, already eroding margins, and the forthcoming deposit return scheme, poses a significant threat to our cider industry’s future. Given its economic importance to Somerset, that will be a devastating financial blow for the many fantastic drink businesses in Glastonbury and Somerton. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent on this point: EPR’s fees and implementation must be both fair and sustainable. With producers facing substantial added costs, they need to be properly supported during the transition to a more circular economy, not punished.
Yesterday’s Budget was a missed opportunity for the Government to demonstrate their support for our hospitality sector by cutting VAT, energy costs and employer national insurance contributions. The Chancellor decided to forgo further support and to levy additional taxation on our pubs, breweries and cider makers by bringing alcohol duty in line with inflation, putting more pubs and breweries at risk of closing their doors for the last time.
We are wholly supportive of the Government’s intention to tackle waste by improving recycling processes, but we remain unconvinced that the introduction of the EPR in its current form will achieve the desired goals. By creating a system that will impose unaffordable added costs on producers, the Government run the risk of forcing them to use cheaper and less recyclable materials or else jeopardising the viability of key local businesses that are driving growth—something that the Government should be committed to protecting.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this critical debate.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, the hon. Lady has heard first hand from many stakeholders, including the British Beer and Pub Association, about how the extended producer responsibility regime is directly affecting businesses. We have heard contributions from Members from across the House today, and indeed from across the United Kingdom, proudly standing up for the businesses in their constituencies and highlighting some of the challenges that the scheme is creating, as well as the challenges facing the hospitality, pub and brewery sector in the United Kingdom in the last year under this Labour Government.
As well as the hon. Lady, we have heard powerful representations from the hon. Members for Woking (Mr Forster), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I had to hold myself back from intervening on the hon. Gentleman—for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), who talked powerfully about steel packaging, for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) and for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies).
I am extremely proud of the positive action taken by the previous Conservative Government on packaging and waste. Between 2010 and 2022, the amount of waste going to landfill was successfully reduced by 47%, and the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill by 46%. In 2015, we introduced a charge on single-use plastic bags, resulting in a 95% cut in sales of plastic bags in major supermarkets. Building on that, we went further and banned the use of single-use plastics such as plastic straws, cutlery and cotton buds, which also restricted businesses’ use of other single-use plastics such as plastic plates.
The last Conservative Government also introduced a tax on plastic packaging containing less than 30% recycled plastic, which encouraged businesses to reduce the use of single-use plastics in their supply chains. Finally, we introduced a simpler recycling collection system, which I am pleased the current Government have taken forward from us, thereby continuing to make recycling more user-friendly, cutting down on confusion and the time spent recycling, and ultimately improving recycling rates, which is good for our environment. These actions were achievable and proportionate.
Importantly, the last Government also laid the correct economic foundations to make those changes and supported businesses—which, I have to say, stands in contrast to what we heard yesterday when the Chancellor delivered her autumn Budget. Many Members here joined me to speak in this Chamber in May, when we had a Westminster Hall debate on glass packaging and the EPR scheme. Back then, I raised my concerns with the Minister about the economic situation and spoke about how, when introducing measures that place costs on businesses, the Government have a responsibility to consider whether this is the appropriate time to impose new burdens on businesses. The British Retail Consortium has said that retailers support the “polluter pays” principle, but it is concerned that the levy will not deliver value for consumers in these challenging economic times—times made far worse by this Labour Government and their mishandling of the economy, as we saw in the run-up to, and the delivery of, yesterday’s retrograde Budget.
The hospitality industry is a key growth sector. A June 2023 report by Ignite Economics, which was commissioned by UKHospitality, found that, for every pound that the UK hospitality industry directly contributes to GDP, it creates a further 58p indirectly and a further £1.30 when including the induced impact. That report also outlined that between 2016 and 2023, hospitality increased its annual economic contribution by £20 billion, to £93 billion. Furthermore, since 2016 employment in the sector has risen to 3.5 million, making hospitality the third largest employer in the country. Finally, hospitality contributed £54 billion in tax receipts to the Treasury last year.
Unfortunately, it appears that this Government do not understand that higher costs and taxes burden businesses and can cause them to close, leading to job losses and destroyed livelihoods. Since the autumn Budget last year, figures published in August of this year show that two hospitality venues are closing every day—including over 100 pubs and restaurants.
Turning again to glass, which is a key reason behind this debate, glass packaging is 100% recyclable—and infinitely recyclable, meaning it can be recycled again and again without losing quality. The previous Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), received a joint letter from the British Beer and Pub Association, British Glass Manufacturers’ Confederation, Scotch Whisky Association, WineGB, Wine and Spirit Trade Association and UKHospitality. The letter warned the Government about the “numerous economic headwinds” that businesses are facing, and highlighted that, while glass represents only 5% of the volume of containers placed on the market, the glass charges cover approximately 30% of the scheme’s cost. The fees are much higher for glass than any other materials, at 10p per average bottle of wine and 17p for every average bottle of spirits, eight times as high as equivalent EU schemes. Indeed, those organisations said in a joint statement:
“There is a risk that without action from the UK government to reduce these fees and move to meaningfully support businesses rather than restrict them, the scheme will result in producers switching to less sustainable materials and that many producers will be charged twice—further restricting investment into the economy.”
Does the Minister agree that that is clearly not how a circular economy should run?
The Minister may be familiar with Mermaid gin and its iconic bottles, which are so beautiful that some companies have upcycled empty bottles into drinking glassware. The Isle of Wight Distillery, which produces Mermaid gin, has said that bottles were designed to be reused and returned to the circular economy. As their compliance and sustainability manager noted,
“it would actually be cheaper to put our liquid into plastic bottles.”
Does the Minister agree that no environmental or recycling policy, however well-intentioned, should end up incentivising companies to think about switching to packaging that is actually less environmentally friendly?
Furthermore, in an article published 31 October by Food Manufacture, Josh Pitman, managing director at sustainable packaging firm Priory Direct, is quoted as saying that he is still receiving hundreds of queries from its over 21,000 customers who do not understand EPR and what they need to do. Mr Pitman outlines how his firm has effectively acted as “EPR customer service” and is quoted as saying that
“there appears to be a lack of clear, helpful guidance and limited proactive engagement with affected businesses from government, aside from some overly exclusive and expensive events featuring official spokespeople.”
What action will the Minister take to provide clearer and more accessible guidance to affected businesses?
The Minister may also be aware that One Water, a water brand that seeks to provide clean water and sanitation to communities around the world, has warned that EPR is placing a disproportionate burden on compliant companies, with the scheme estimated to cost the firm £140,000 in 2025. It is estimated that the scheme has already contributed to a £400,000 loss in glass product sales, mostly through lost hotel, bar and restaurant sales. How will the Minister work with stakeholders to ensure that compliant companies are not disproportionately affected?
Climbing food prices, record levels of farm closures, two pubs or restaurants closing a day and business confidence at a 15-year low, as well as the awful costs of the family farm tax—even before it has fully come into force—outline why we are currently in a food and farming emergency. As the Minister may know, last week the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), hosted a food and farming emergency summit to ask farmers, fishermen and food producers what urgent measures they need to survive the next 12 months. The EPR was raised as a key issue that is causing the sector significant concern because food, drink and hospitality businesses, including local pubs, are currently being unfairly charged twice.
Following that summit, and having listened to the measures the industry said are needed, my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State wrote to the Secretary of State to ask the Government to work with her on the industry’s call for a rapid review of the impact of the Government’s EPR scheme on the food, drink and hospitality sectors, including through the double charging of pubs, about which we have heard many times today. I hope that the Minister will consider the merit of that request, which came directly from those attending the emergency summit.
I noted in yesterday’s Budget that the Government will: consult in 2026 on the extended producer responsibility and proposals to measure how often and how well local authorities use fees; appoint a producer responsibility organisation by March 2026 to give industry a role in the scheme’s operation; and consult on reforms to the packaging waste recycling note system. Perhaps the Minister will repeat that in due course. That is all well and good, but the sector needs urgent action now to ensure that the EPR system is fit for purpose and that our fantastic food, drink, retail and hospitality sectors are protected and encouraged to thrive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing the debate, and thank hon. Members from across the House who have made valuable contributions today. I am struck by the cross-party consensus. This is the first time we have welcomed a Reform MP—the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin)—to these discussions.
Let us remember that these are the biggest changes to recycling policy since the landfill tax was introduced in 2002, under the last Labour Government. The changes were introduced with cross-party consensus. All parties support what this Government are trying to do. Indeed, the changes are the continuation of much of the policy of the previous Government, but there have been some important changes—we have certainly not done the seven bins that they proposed in the Environment Act 2021.
EPR for packaging is the cornerstone of the recycling reforms. The reforms are designed to drive up the recycling rate to 55% over the next 10 years. The rate has languished at 42% since about 2015, despite what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said. The reforms will increase the quality and quantity of the recycling that local councils collect, support sustainable growth in the UK waste management and reprocessing sector, and reduce our reliance on materials imported from overseas.
We have just come back from the conference of the parties in Belém. The negotiations galvanised all nations to take steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and our impact on the planet. Think globally, act locally—this is our local action.
EPR moves recycling costs from us as taxpayers to the packaging producers. It works alongside other reforms to create systematic change. Simpler recycling in England will make recycling easier and more consistent. From 1 April, we will be able to recycle the same materials, including glass, whether at home, work or school. That will change the quality of the material streams to enable us to move to the much more circular economy that we all want to see.
Mary Creagh
I am going to make some progress, because otherwise we are never going to get through this.
We have already provided £340 million to local councils in England alone, in particular to bring in food waste collection. That is particularly important, because it will allow us to create green gas and digestate, which we can use as fertiliser. We have to move away from the high-input fertilisers we use now.
In this space, pEPR has an important role to play. It will divert packaging from residual waste into recycling. We estimate that the policy will save 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and about £189 million in emissions. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower spoke about growth. These reforms will support a thriving economy. As a result of these reforms, the waste management sector has committed to create 25,000 new jobs and invest more than £10 billion in the economy. Circular industries, keeping products and materials in circulation for as long as possible, now deliver £67 billion each year to our economy, and growth in this sector is more than double the rate of the overall UK economy.
We have heard concerns, which I shall address quickly. We have met with glass producers—I can go through the list of the meetings. Basically, glass, due to its durability, is uniquely placed to take advantage of the generous financial incentives pEPR provides for reuse, because reusable containers only attract a fee the first time they are used.
The Government recognise the value of the glass sector to the economy and have provided direct support to four of the major container glass manufacturers—Encirc is one of them—through the British industry supercharger scheme to ensure they remain competitive in a global market. I have some details here about how much they are going to save. Four glass companies are in receipt of this support and the package of measures is estimated to save eligible companies around £24 to £31 per MWh and reduce electricity costs so they are more closely aligned with their key international competitors. That is designed to reduce the risk of carbon leakage and help them to compete on the international stage.
Yesterday’s Budget was mentioned. For pEPR, the Chancellor has announced consulting on proposed changes to the packaging recycling note scheme; consulting on options to drive transformation of local authority waste management and ensuring the accountability of pEPR funding. I have written to local authorities, as well as to PackUK, to reassert the need for this money to be spent on collecting packaging waste and not on cross-subsidising other areas of local authority spending; and appointing producer leadership of the scheme by March next year to give industry a central role in running the scheme.
In the hospitality sector, we are publishing a national licensing policy framework, asking licensing authorities in England and Wales to consider the need to promote growth and deliver economic benefits in their decisions; we are appointing a retail and hospitality envoy to champion and deliver these changes; and we are making a commitment to explore changes to the planning framework to make it easier for hospitality businesses to grow.
We heard a lot about the brilliant small businesses in MPs’ constituencies. For small businesses, we have some of the most generous exemptions of any scheme in the world. Businesses with a turnover below £2 million or that place less than 50 tonnes of packaging on the market are not obligated to pay pEPR fees or recycling obligations. The exemptions mean that 70% of UK businesses that supply packaging are not obligated under this scheme. We have also heard about issues around the bills and the paying of the bills. To help larger businesses that are obligated, PackUK is offering quarterly payment options to help with cash flow. PackUK will watch the thresholds carefully, knowing that raising them would push costs on to the remaining businesses as local authority collection costs stay the same.
We have been listening to feedback so we have adapted our approach. This time last year, we were working tirelessly with the Environment Agency to bring so-called free riders into compliance—people who were putting glass on the market but had not actually registered with anybody anywhere. That increased the total tonnage of material registered in the scheme and enabled us to reduce the final fees, so the reduction of the base fees for 2025 actually went down by up to 38%, depending on the material.
Let me talk quickly about steel. I met with the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association in September, and officials are following up on that. I am very conscious of the need, when the new arc furnace comes on stream, to make sure that we have a steady supply of scrap steel to enable it to stay in continuous production.
We are also engaging with stakeholders to develop the approach to in-scope packaging. We are looking at household packaging that is sometimes disposed of in business waste—for example, beer and wine bottles can be disposed of in pub bins.
We are looking at changing the recycling assessment methodology for next year to address complex composite packaging, which is really hard to recycle—particularly foil packages, which may have plastic on the inside and may contain paper. I talked to local authorities about that only this week, and we hope to bring forward a solution as soon as possible.
[Christine Jardine in the Chair]
Andy Slaughter
The Minister has a deep understanding of this issue, and we all support the objectives that she is aiming for, but obviously we have come along to bring our problems to her. I hope she will not mind dealing with the two issues that have been raised: double charging for pubs, which is estimated to cost them £50 million, and the fee for glass—the weight versus volume equation—which is estimated to cost brewers £124 million a year. Those are real costs to businesses, many of which are up against the margins and are dealing with other pressures in the hospitality industry.
Mary Creagh
I thank my hon. Friend for his follow-up questions. Several colleagues have raised the issue of cost being calculated by weight and not by unit, but waste management costs are largely driven by weight. We have taken into account other factors that influence collection costs, including the estimated volume of each material in bins and collection vehicles. Glass is a heavy material with a low resale value. A unit of glass packaging costs more for a local authority to manage as waste than an item made up of more lightweight and high-value material. Our recycling assessment methodology changes are published on defra.gov.uk, so people can see the changes that we are proposing to bring in next year and how we are ramping up the fees payable for less recyclable packaging.
Reuse and refill of packaging provides a real opportunity for economic growth and job creation. Earlier this year, GoUnpackaged produced economic modelling that made a compelling case for scaling up reuse in UK grocery retail. That work showed end-to-end system cost savings of up to £577 million a year, highlighting the economic viability of reuse in the UK. In response to that research, major grocery retailers have committed to working together to scale reusable packaging systems. Innovate UK has commissioned a scoping study to develop the blueprint for the first wave of this bold multi-retailer reuse scheme, so change will be coming in this sector pretty fast.
Dr Hudson
The Minister is talking about economic viability. I mentioned that the Government said in the Budget yesterday that they will consult on the EPR scheme, and she has repeated that. The Conservatives are calling for an urgent review. A consultation is not good enough; proverbially, that just kicks the steel can down the track. Will the Government commit to an urgent review so that businesses do not suffer in the coming months?
Mary Creagh
There are two things at play here. One is the recycling assessment methodology. The proposed changes for year two of the scheme are on the website already, and we will be legislating for them. I held a roundtable with packaging producers in July, and we spent the summer looking at different options. People have mentioned the different fees in Germany. Germany has a very large reliance on bring sites, so people bring their glass bottles to a place; they are not collected from the home. It is our household waste collection that makes our fees necessarily higher.
We have looked at dual-use packaging, and various proposals have been put forward, but not a single proposal had unanimous agreement. We are trying to hold the ring between packaging producers, microbreweries, supermarkets and local waste authorities. There is no simple solution to this complex problem—[Interruption.] It is hard. The previous Government devised and put forward legislation on this, and, of course, as soon as that is brought in, all the issues with it come out. We are working on that and we are meeting with them. In my box, I have a submission on proposals for how we carry on looking at that, so today’s debate will genuinely feed into my decision making on it.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution I referred to DAERA in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister engage with them—I know she probably does already—so that we can work together on progress going forward?
Mary Creagh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. I know that one of the issues in Northern Ireland is doing the behaviour change and driving up recycling rates. Communication is one of the most important things, and I take on board the official Opposition’s comments about the communications on this issue. It is incredibly complicated; civil servants are dealing with a massive change programme and everyone is trying to say what matters and how it changes.
Through the simpler recycling reforms, we are asking for everyone to be able to recycle the same things in every local authority and every workplace across the country. That is a massive system change, so there will be some confusion. There will need to be management and communication of that change, and for that we are essentially reliant on our local authority partners to get those messages across. I think I am meeting with Minister Muir shortly—we meet quite a lot to discuss these issues.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) told a story about his grandchildren. In 2002, when we brought in the landfill tax, we had one bin—it was a black bin, and everything went in it—and the question was, “Is this ever going to work? Will recycling ever happen?”. I take great encouragement from the fact that when we tell people, “This is your bit. This is what you can do locally in your home and your kitchen to help to tackle climate change and reduce carbon emissions,” the vast majority of people want to do the right thing—even, like the hon. Gentleman, by going and picking out the things out of the bin that should be recycled; and if he has not done it, then his grandchildren will do it for him. There are a lot of encouraging stories of hope that we can tell here.
We are looking at the German model and the Austrian model as part of how we might develop on these issues in the future. This package of measures will be the foundation for unlocking the transition to a circular economy in the UK. We hope to publish our circular economy plan in short order. Everything that is in our bins affects us, but we need to look at textiles, construction and waste electricals—there are huge volumes of materials flowing through the economy that we are not capturing.
Sarah Dyke
I want to push the Minister on the plight of our struggling hospitality sector. I asked if she could consider exempting pubs from the EPR scheme at this stage to give a chance to review the scheme and help support our struggling hospitality sector.
Mary Creagh
I have to be brief. As I say, we are keeping all our policies under review. The EPR scheme will not be sorted out quickly—it only went live in October, and here we are in November, asking for a big change. We have also heard that businesses need certainty, so I do not want to set any hares running by saying, “This is all going to change next year.” We need to do it in slow time, by consensus and by working with industry. I thank Members for their valuable contributions to the debate; this feedback will genuinely help us to create a fair transition to a circular economy, as we continue with these important reforms and build a world where the UK leads in innovation and sustainability.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank all Members for their contributions, and the Minister for her response. Swansea council is the second-best local authority in the UK, I believe—I do not know if one of the Minister’s special advisers can get that fact for me. I invite the Minister to speak to the all-party parliamentary beer group in the near future, because I know that that conversation would be important.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging.