Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Tonia Antoniazzi

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.

Road Traffic Collisions Involving Cats

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Tonia Antoniazzi

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. That is exactly what I am going to talk about. I agree that the microchipping legislation should be brought forward.

Under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, drivers are required to stop and report incidents of hitting a horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). The Act reflects an understanding of animals as having a financial value attached to them as livestock or working animals. As such, cats are not covered. The petitioner, Olivia, and organisations including Battersea and the Blue Cross want this to change.

Because there is currently no legal requirement to report, we do not know how many cats are killed by vehicles. One needs only to have a quick search through their local area’s Facebook groups to know that. It is sadly very commonplace. Some 52% of respondents to the Petitions Committee’s survey for this debate said they had lost a cat as a result of a road traffic accident, with a further 40% suspecting that their cat had been killed but without any proof.

The reality is that not all drivers comply with the 1988 Act as it stands. For example, one particular road in my constituency has become notorious for cattle deaths at night, with the deceased animals being found by other drivers in lighter hours and reported then. Whether or not there is a place for cats in the Act, we know that it is not fully fit for purpose as it stands. How can the Government help to ensure that cat owners such as Olivia are not left in limbo when it comes to losing their beloved pet?

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I had the pleasure of hosting a Cats Protection event just before Christmas. Some 76 MPs and peers turned up, which shows where the sympathies of Members lie. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a shame the Government are out of step with the view of Members and that they should look at this matter again? They have dismissed it rather out of hand in their response to the petition, but this issue goes hand in hand with microchipping. The Government said they would bring forward microchipping by the end of last year; they should now do so, in tandem with introducing provisions on reporting.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point and for hosting Cats Protection before Christmas. That event really was well attended. The point of such events is to raise awareness of legislation that is not fit for purpose and to talk to peers and Members of Parliament about the importance of cats. We do not need a huge uprooting of legislation to get this right: small changes would make a huge difference to cats and cat owners.

First, we need the Government to finally make good on their promise to make it a legal requirement for cats to be microchipped. In its 2022 “Cats and Their Stats” report, Cats Protection estimated that 2.8 million cats are not microchipped, meaning they do not have any permanent identification. Microchipping is a hugely important part of responsible pet ownership, and making it compulsory for cat owners would send a vital message that it is an integral part of looking after a cat. The Government had planned to lay regulations by the end of 2022 to bring compulsory cat microchipping into force after a transition period, but sadly that has not yet happened. I would be most grateful if the Minister could confirm a timetable for the enactment of that legislation. He has a wonderful opportunity to come forward with that change, which the Government have supported.

Secondly, requiring local authorities to scan and log cat fatalities would make a huge difference. National Highways contracts already include a requirement to identify and inform the owner of any domesticated animal fatality on main trunk roads, with keepers given the opportunity to come forward and collect their pet’s remains. The local authorities that cover the rest of the road network are duty-bound to remove deceased animals but not to scan and log, although many do—the situation is inconsistent across the United Kingdom, but the infrastructure already exists.

By requiring local authorities to make attempts to identify cat fatalities, comfort and certainty can be given to owners whose cats are killed in accidents. A freedom of information request carried out by Cats Protection in May 2019 found that 92% of local councils in England have some sort of arrangement in place to scan cats, but only 75% inform the chip company. It is clear that there is a lack of consistency on this front, and intervention from the Government would only improve the situation.

It is true that cats and dogs, while both beloved choices of pet, have different legal standings. We should be creating parity between the two and making things less difficult. Dog owners are legally required to keep their dog under control in public, whereas cats are said to have the right to roam, although owners are still responsible for making sure that their cats do not cause injury or damage to property. The so-called right to roam has often ended conversations on cat welfare legislation, for reasons I have already discussed, but that need not be the case.

Unlike so many of the issues we discuss within these walls, this is not a complex problem. The infrastructure needed to implement the changes already exists and charities such as Cats Protection are already working with local authorities to provide scanners and support their work. The changes requested may not save cats, but they can prevent any added heartbreak. I extend my deepest thanks to Olivia for starting the petition and starting the conversation. She is asking not for an overhaul of legislation but just the chance for other owners to feel the closure that she has felt at such a traumatic time.