Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.