Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion]

I agree 100%. These consequences —one hopes that they are unintended consequences—are the stark evidence that has been put to the Minister, but seemingly it is not making any difference.

I go back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay made. EPR is intended to apply to household waste only. As pubs and similar businesses already pay for their packaging waste collection via commercial contracts, they are being charged double.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She is pointing out the double counting and the effect of EPR. I have 19 pubs and Fuller’s brewery in my constituency, and they employ about 4,000 people. With all the other pressures on pubs and the hospitality industry at the moment, this is a bridge too far. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to reconsider this?

[Sarah Champion]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend: the Government need to pause, and I will go on to argue why they need to do that.

One of the problems is that packaging producers are unable to exclude these products from their EPR liability. There is no way out for pubs and hospitality businesses other than to pay. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association has said:

“Defra’s new rules do not work, and the vast majority of bottles sold in hospitality will pay EPR fees, completely unfairly. Defra are aware of their mistake but have admitted the issue would not be prioritised.”

Why? For brewers, the cost of glass beer bottle packaging is estimated to be more than £150 million per year. These additional costs will ultimately be passed on to the consumers. The Government themselves estimate that 85% of EPR costs will fall on the end user. With the public already facing stubbornly high costs of living and inflationary pressure, I cannot comprehend why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is proceeding with a policy that its own analysis suggests may not meaningfully improve recycling rates. I urge the Minister to change course and step away from this madness.

Let us look in detail at this flawed scheme. The exact methodology for calculating EPR has still not been fully shared, even though it came into effect last month. The process to date has been far from transparent. Based on current illustrative fees, glass is liable for around 30% of EPR costs, while only representing around 5% of in-scope material by volume. That is because fees are calculated by weight, not volume. Glass, as a relatively heavy material, suffers unfairly because of that, yet volume is the limiting factor when collecting and processing waste, not weight.

British Glass has raised several areas that it believes are incorrect in the methodology for calculating the base fees, but it has received no certainty from DEFRA that these will be reflected in the final fees. I am aware that other packaging trade associations have serious concerns about the methodology used to create the base fees. The fee for glass currently stands at £240 per tonne, which equates to around 10p per glass bottle—significantly higher than under similar schemes in Europe.

Germany is often cited, including by DEFRA, as having a good example of a successful EPR scheme. In Germany, the fee stands at £24, or €28, per tonne of glass. I appreciate that collection methods are different in Europe so the comparison is not exact, but are we seriously expected to believe it costs 10 times as much to collect and process glass in the UK as it does in Germany?

The policy makes even less sense when we consider that brands and retailers do not buy packaging by weight, but by unit. That is why it is essential to have an EPR fee that takes into account unit numbers. Recyclable glass can be 20 times heavier than less recyclable packaging, resulting in vastly disproportionate EPR fees on glass.

When I raised these issues previously, the Minister acknowledged that the per-unit impact on glass is higher than for other materials, yet the Government have failed to address that, calling into question their repeated claim that the policy is material-neutral. That is simply not true. Glass is being penalised. The implementation of EPR leaves glass at the mercy of its competitors. Glass beverage containers have been subject to EPR fees since the start of April 2025. Competing materials such as aluminium and plastic will face no policy fees until the introduction of the DRS in, at the earliest, October 2027.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this important debate.

As the MP for Burton and Uttoxeter, I am proud to represent my hometown and the home of British brewing. As I have said many times in this house, Burton’s brewery heritage stretches back centuries, and our iconic breweries are known the world over not just for the quality of their beer, which I sample very regularly, but for the communities that they support and the skilled jobs that they sustain. Brewing is in our blood; it shapes our local economy, our identity and indeed the very character of our communities. When policies come forward that could affect the future of this proud industry, we must pay close attention. Extended producer responsibility is one such policy. The ambition behind it is good—we want to see more recycling, less waste and a greener future—but the way this policy is being introduced risks real harm to businesses that are already working very hard to do the right thing.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is right that nobody is against the principle of recycling or the aims we are trying to achieve, but the policy is having unintended consequences for many small brewers and small pubs, which have very tight overheads. In some cases, the cost of EPR is more than their total profit, which is why I hope the Government will look again and come back with a revised scheme.

[Jacob Collier]

Absolutely—I am just about to make that point. Under the current plans, brewers, particularly those using glass bottles, face more than £150 million a year in new charges. That is not a minor adjustment. For some producers it could be the difference between profit and loss, in a sector that is already under huge strain.

The impact does not stop at the brewery gate. Pubs, many of which already pay for their own commercial waste disposal, will be charged again under EPR. That double payment for the same waste will cost up to £2,000 a year for larger venues. While DEFRA has acknowledged that this is a flaw in the system, a fix is not expected for another two years. In the meantime, pubs will foot the bill.

EPR will have a direct impact in my constituency, which has the most brewing jobs of any constituency in the UK and is home to companies such as Punch and Greene King, and to brewers such as Molson Coors and Marston’s. The policy will stifle growth and investment at a time when they are the Government’s No. 1 mission. There is also confusion about how EPR should be classified. The Office for Budget Responsibility calls it a tax, whereas DEFRA calls it a levy.

That lack of clarity really matters. Businesses in my constituency and around the country need certainty to invest, plan and grow, and at the moment they do not have it. Perhaps most frustratingly of all, according to the Government’s own analysis these changes might not meaningfully improve recycling rates. We risk burdening brewers and pubs with new costs without a guarantee that EPR will actually deliver the environmental benefits that we want to see.

Nobody is asking for the goals of EPR to be abandoned, but we need to make sure that the system works for the environment and for British industry, local jobs and communities such as mine that depend on them. Burton’s brewers have survived wars, recessions and global pandemics. They can continue to thrive with the right support, but they cannot and should not be asked to carry an unfair burden. Will the Minister please listen to the industry and work together with us to get this right?