Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will be brief, because I know something else is happening this evening that others want to engage in. I am not entirely sure what that is, but apparently it is quite popular.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this debate. I know about the glass industry and she has rehearsed some of the arguments in particular for producers of beer. I have had similar correspondence from various agencies about the perversity of a weight-based system that precludes the use of a product that is infinitely usable and moves manufacturers towards plastic and thinner aluminium products because it is cheaper. I am sure the Minister will comment on that.

I want to talk about two things. I must first declare an interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on packaging in the circular economy, which is chaired excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore). I think it is quite clear that this is a good policy and a good system but that it has had some unintended consequences. We are trying to iron them out for the benefit of all.

In my constituency I have one of Premier Foods’ Mr Kipling factories. It has done a considerable amount of work on reformulating its plastic from red trays so that it can be recycled. It has also looked at how it can use cardboard better. It has looked at the use of its plastic film, which is really important for the freshness of its products, but that is obviously a product that it is trying to phase out. The high cost of looking at using the newer systems, particularly those that are too small for registration, such as biodegradable or organic films, means that there is an incentive to stick with the plastic manufacturing, which is a challenge.

I also wanted to touch briefly on the ceramics industry—of course, no debate in this place is complete without mention of ceramics. I say that in jest, but one of the things that the ceramics sector is dependent on, particularly the giftware sector, is people buying a product that is often shipped around the country. Most of those organisations will have a turnover that means that their products and packaging are registerable under the scheme. If I go online and buy a product from the European Union—something of appreciable aesthetics but of a much lower quality—and it is brought into the UK, there is a price differential, because of the cost of the packaging that it is shipped in. It becomes a disincentive for the UK purchaser to buy a British product.

If companies are shipping certain products, such as ceramics or glass, they need to be absolutely certain that the packaging is sufficiently robust, due to the fragility of the product being shipped. There are not that many alternatives. I know that some in the sector have looked at cardboard, but cardboard is a move away from polystyrene, and polystyrene is cheaper by weight, so they stick with the product that is actually more damaging to the environment.

Finally, because I know Members will want to go and watch association football—I believe that is what is on right now—there is also an issue for small innovative packaging firms that are looking at new material. I know that the Minister is scheduled to meet, or may have already met, an organisation from Staffordshire called WoolCool. They are using wool as a packaging product, and it is entirely reusable. People can use it in their garden, and the birds can take it away to make nests and so on. It can be used for all sorts of lovely things, even as a thermal insulator. It is completely reusable.

However, the company is so small that it was rated “red” until recently, which means that no one really knows what is going on with the costings arrangements. They end up not knowing what costs they might be faced with later on and, therefore, they do not know what costs they have to build into their business models. WoolCool is a small business that is trying to do something really ethical, and it is of real value to the local economy in Staffordshire. It is also trying to move away from those much more damaging products, but it is currently not sure what to do.

Can the Minister touch on how we will better engage with new manufacturers that are producing new materials such as wool? They have a real place in the future of our packaging industry and will create jobs in places such as Staffordshire. We need to ensure that they have an opportunity to grow and take away some of those damaging plastics, which is what we all want. I would be very grateful if the Minister could reflect on how we will make sure that the EPR weightings for those good, consumable products that we want the British public to buy, such as ceramics, are not disproportionately outpriced by foreign competitors because of our packaging rules in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I cannot speak for what happened under the previous Administration, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the scheme was announced in 2018, and a consultation happened in 2019. There was another consultation, but I cannot find the exact part of my pack on that. There was a full impact assessment of PEPR published in October 2020, setting out the expected overall costs to businesses. At that stage, it was not possible to assess the impact on specific sectors or regions, as fees and modulation had not been finalised. This has been a huge infrastructure project change, and a huge system change. The Environment Agency, acting as the regulator, holds the database of everyone who is a packaging producer. Elsewhere in the waste and packaging sector, we see large issues around avoidance, free riding and other issues, so we had to go through a massive piece of work with our regulator to ensure that everyone who is putting packaging on is meeting their obligations.

There were public consultations in 2019 and 202,1 and a consultation on draft regulations in 2023. There was a consultation with British Glass on the decision to use volume in the apportionment of kerbside recycling collection costs in July 2024, prior to the release of the initial set of illustrative base fees. I think that there was perhaps a misunderstanding, given that this had all been thought about and discussed for five or six years, that it was never going to happen. To be fair to the smaller companies, perhaps they were unaware of their obligations, or perhaps they were not obligated at that time, but have since grown and been brought over the de minimis threshold.

Let me talk a little bit more about what the Government are doing more widely to support glass businesses with their electricity costs.

[Gareth Snell]

I genuinely thank the Minister for being generous with her time. On the idea of a post-implementation review, is there a way of looking at the time that businesses have to spend interacting with the scheme? The Titanic brewery in Stoke-on-Trent—very good beer, by the way—has told me that it took three weeks of one employee’s time to complete the assessment for the first year’s fees. I am sure that that is not by design, but in the review, will the Department look at how to make interaction with the scheme easier for small businesses that do not have much capacity?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and this is something that I have been insistent with officials on. This is a complex scheme, and the more complexity we add into it, the more time it will take. There is a trade-off here, and a set of difficulties, because we can do carve-outs for x and y sector, but that creates more complexity in the recycling assessment methodology calculations for other parts of the packaging industry. We have to beware of making perfection the enemy of the good. I can also let my hon. Friend know that the chief executive officer of PackUK, Jeremy Blake, met the WoolCool CEO yesterday. I thought that had happened, but I am glad to have got the note telling me it is true.

Beyond this, we are supporting the glass businesses with their electricity costs through the British industry supercharger. Glass businesses now receive 90% compensation for electricity network charges. This brings their total reduction in electricity bills to an average of between £65 and £87 per megawatt-hour. We are also supporting the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors with lower tax rates for their properties. On the issue around cheaper imports coming from overseas, the Trade Remedies Authority’s independent anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations into cheaper glass imports from China and Turkey are ongoing. That is dealt with by another Government Department.

We are working closely with industry to address the challenge of dual use—packaging disposed of in either business or household waste streams. We know how important this issue is to stakeholders across different sectors, including pubs, hospitality and medical packaging businesses, and construction. Indeed, I met a representative of the paint industry at a B&Q in my Coventry East constituency. Paint will always come in a tin or plastic container with a coating inside it, so it will never attract “green” fees, but we want to get that paint recycled, reused or repurposed. B&Q is doing some excellent work with the charity Neighbourly to ensure that paint has a second life. People do not know what to do with unused paint. Builders finish using a pot, then down into the drain the rest goes, adding to the diffuse water pollution that we are experiencing across our sewer network.

This is a tricky issue, but we need a system that can be effectively monitored and enforced. It is no good just saying, “Oh, everyone decides that all their stuff goes to the pubs” and then suddenly we are left with a massive shortfall in the fees, so it has to be verifiable. We are testing solutions, including for hospitality, and building on international best practice, looking in particular at the Austrian model. I held a roundtable with industry last year to look at solutions for the dual-use challenge. It is difficult, but I hope for a solution on this issue soon that does not add undue complexity to the scheme or make it impossible for the regulator to verify.

[Gareth Snell]

I am sorry to detain the House. I am not sure if a try has been scored yet, but I am sure somebody will find out—

[Mary Creagh]

A try!

[Gareth Snell]

The Minister mentioned the super-charger scheme and the impact for glass manufacturers. I know the super-charger scheme is not her Department, but it is only for frontier industries. Can she say whether or not glass bottle manufacturers that go into the hospitality sector benefit from that? My understanding was that they do not because they are not considered one of the glass fibres or the industrial glass needed for the frontier industries.

[Mary Creagh]

I am looking to my officials in the Box, and I think it is probably safest if I write to my hon. Friend on that issue.

Let me tell the House about the year 1 shortfall in fees. There was a shortfall in the fees this year as we allowed packaging producers to submit their tonnages and then their tonnages reduced because, obviously, they looked at their figures and reduced them. We listened to industry on that. Despite the regulations saying that actually industry should make up any shortfall, my Department took pressure off businesses by funding on an exceptional basis to hold fees down. We are taking steps this year to ensure that we do not have a repeat of that.

On early successes, we are hearing about PEPR bringing about change. Councils all over the UK are using this funding from the packaging industry to improve services to local people. In Tameside, the metropolitan council is investing £1.6 million in new vehicles and improved technology to deliver a more reliable service for taxpayers. Councils are investing to improve glass collection directly, which should benefit the industry in terms of the supply of high-quality cullet. For example, Aberdeenshire council is investing £5 million over 2 years to purchase a new three-compartment glass collection vehicle—I hope that is “vehicles”, but it says “vehicle” here—upgrading glass recycling points to reduce contamination, and improving the quality of glass recyclate, which we know really matters to the glass industry.