Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Mary Creagh

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

Badger Cull

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Mary Creagh

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am coming on to that point in my speech. Her report certainly talks about the need for a proper strategy and a coherent policy, and I am not sure that that is what we have got from this Government.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has correctly identified an issue about which hundreds of my constituents have written to me, namely animal cruelty. Given the lack of evidence and the absence of consensus on the matter, and in the light of the huge public concern, the cull surely cannot go ahead. It is extraordinary that Government Members have not reflected the concern felt by their own constituents.

[Mary Creagh]

I know that there is a great deal of public concern. Any policy must be socially, environmentally and politically deliverable, and the Minister’s decision to pursue the cull will test the limits of those requirements.

In Gloucestershire, the police and crime commissioner is against the cull and the county council has said that culling will not take place on its land. Serious practical difficulties are posed by free shooting near footpaths and camp sites with bullets that can travel up to two miles. If the cull goes ahead, it will not end well. It will be bad for farmers, bad for taxpayers and bad for wildlife.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Mary Creagh

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

We believe that the allocation of sums, guarantees, indemnities, or whatever form the financial assistance takes, should be done with full parliamentary oversight, and I will address that when I move on to clause 2.

We believe that the tariffs should be paid for by cracking down on bad debt, which the Secretary of State mentioned in her speech. Ofwat’s website states:

“More than five million households currently owe money on their water bills and over the last five years the amount owed has increased by more than 50%.”

In 2010, £1.6 billion was outstanding, three times the amount of bad debt for gas and electricity bills, despite the fact that water bills are much lower. As she said, the people who cannot or will not pay add an average of £15 a year to the bills of consumers who play by the rules. Bad debt arises in part because landlords are under no legal obligation to provide their tenants’ details to water companies. Rather than a voluntary approach, the Government should compel landlords to share their tenants’ details with water companies, and I know that the consultation is ongoing and is due to close fairly soon. If we reduce bad debt, we can reduce everyone’s bills and fund social tariffs that help those struggling to pay.

Clause 2 creates financial mechanisms and guarantees to support the construction of the Thames tunnel. Why do the Government avoid using the words “Thames tunnel”? Are they trying to avoid a proper discussion of the merits? Labour supports the project. Our Flood and Water Management Act 2010 introduced a “provision of infrastructure” regulation, creating the framework for the tendering, designation and building of such projects. However, costs have risen and time scales have stretched. The Government need to show leadership and make a clear commitment to the project and ensure that the right vehicle for managing and delivering it is put in place. The consultation process for the tunnel is vital for ensuring that sites are placed correctly and the environmental impact of the work on residents is minimised.

[Mr Slaughter]

I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the Thames tunnel, and to that extent I agree with the Secretary of State. However, had the Secretary of State not chuntered through her speech in such a cursory manner on an issue that is very important to London Members, I could have told her that the virulently anti-tunnel comments that I quoted were not mine, but those of my neighbouring Tory MP, the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), who happens to be a Government Whip. This is just another example of members of the Government saying one thing in the House before going back to their constituencies and saying the exact opposite.

[Mary Creagh]

That used to be the province of the Liberal Democrats, but perhaps saying two different things, depending on whether one is at the top or the bottom of the hill, in the House or in one’s constituency, is contagious. We should all take the necessary precautions, but such indiscipline would never have been allowed when I was a Government assistant Whip.

There remain, however, a number of hurdles to clear, not least that of the Communities and Local Government Secretary, who has an effective veto over the tunnel, so DEFRA support alone will be insufficient. We see the tunnel, in addition to its environmental benefit, as an opportunity to create up to 4,000 direct jobs for Londoners, to expand apprenticeships and to regenerate London. With the provision of financial assistance, we expect not just those apprenticeships but higher-level training to be a non-negotiable part of the deal.

In an infrastructure project of this scale, complexity and duration, we should be setting targets not just for apprentices but for the number of young people who will achieve masters-level civil engineering qualifications over the project’s lifetime, as well as encouraging local and national procurement to secure growth and the economic recovery in London.

No impact assessment has been produced alongside the Bill. The rather short explanatory memorandum states that this is because the Bill is associated with public expenditure, but clearly there will be burdens on water companies when administering any schemes under clauses 1 and 2, so what conditions will South West Water have to fulfil? Presumably, there will be an audit process, so what will the company’s administrative costs be, or has it agreed to waive them?

Of more concern, however, is the fact that there is no provision anywhere in the Bill to require potentially large sums of taxpayers’ money to be spent transparently and accountably. Clauses 1 and 2 state that undefined “terms and conditions” can be attached to the use of public money, but that falls well short of making clear exactly what will happen, and we believe that certain safeguards should be specified in the Bill.

I had a little look at the Water Industry Act 1991 this morning, and section 152 states that the Government can pay out money to water firms only

“in the interests of national security.”

So it is clear that infrastructure projects of the scale and cost of the one before us were simply not envisaged at the time of privatisation.

Today’s Bill shows those limitations, and section 154 of the 1991 Act also states very clearly that if any financial assistance or guarantee is given,

“the Secretary of State shall lay a statement of the guarantee before each House of Parliament”

and

“as soon as possible after the end of each financial year…lay before each House of Parliament a statement relating to that sum.”

The right hon. Lady says that the subsidy to South West Water will continue until the end of the next comprehensive spending review period, but that again is not in the Bill or in the explanatory memorandum, and we want to see those things guaranteed.