Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Tonia Antoniazzi Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[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—]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.