Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has, as always, introduced this SI with clarity. This SI relates to extended producer responsibility for packaging, whereby the producer pays a levy or tax for the waste that it produces, which is then collected by the local authority. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has in the past accused me of being “nerdy” over certain issues. I fear that waste is one of those issues.

The public consultation took place on this scheme from March to June 2021. As a result of the responses to the consultation, Defra has made changes to the scheme and the implementation date has been extended to 2024. The postponement of the implementation date, along with the possibility of changes to the scheme itself, has caused concern in the plastics and glass industries. On Monday evening, I attended a dinner hosted by the Industry and Parliamentary Trust entitled “Unpacking Waste Regulation: Extended Producer Responsibility”. The discussion around the table was fascinating with many raising concerns about the lack of clear and transparent goals.

I am also perturbed about the scope of the material facilities, referred to in the EM as “MFs”. There is nothing giving further information on what form these material facilities will take. Can the Minister give information on the distinct types of material facilities? Paragraph 7.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that waste will arrive at the MFs unsorted. However, in many areas of the country, consumers are already separating their waste into glass, paper, card, plastic bottles, aluminium, steel et cetera. Consumers are up for helping with the problem of waste and separating it out themselves and should be encouraged to do so. What is needed is consistent kerbside recycling collections. What are the plans for this? There needs to be a complete plan for a circular waste economy. Can the Minister please give a timetable for the introduction of this?

Paragraph 10.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum gives a list of the responses to the consultation on the part of the Government. There is clarity over the collection of data on weighing and measuring the waste received and the collection of data will give a reasonably accurate picture of what is being produced, but what then happens to the waste? This is equally important. What it does not tell us is what happens to the waste. Does it go to incineration or chemical recycling or is it shipped offshore to be dealt with by other countries, such as Turkey? Currently, 60% of our waste is sent to Turkey. Can the Minister say what will happen with glass?

Paragraph 11 indicates that guidance will be issued for materials facilities in advance of October 2024 when the regulation comes into force. I am not sure whether the Minister said that that guidance had been issued. If not, he will understand that businesses need a long time to adapt to new regulations, in some cases as long as 18 months. However, it is already too late for that deadline to be met. Has the guidance been produced? If not, when is it likely to be produced?

The original proposals were for 60 kilograms of every 125 tonnes of mixed waste from each supplier to be tested. This has now been increased to 60 kilograms for every 75 tonnes of waste. Are suppliers likely to have mixed waste? Will it not already be separated? Some MFs deal with single waste streams or already separated waste while others do not. Can the Minister say what percentage of MFs receive separated waste and what percentage receive mixed waste?

Although this SI is an excellent step forward, there has been a lot of delay and uncertainty. Are the Government confident that the infrastructure is there to deal with the implementation?

I turn to the impacts set out in paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I am afraid it is simply not true that there is

“no significant impact on business”,

as stated in paragraph 12.1. The DRS itself is likely to add 10p per bottle, which is unlikely to be absorbed by businesses. In paragraph 12.4, the number of MFs in scope is reduced from 739 to 159. This is a dramatic reduction; can the Minister please explain it?

Paragraph 12.6 refers to

“a larger proportion of privately operated facilities”,

thus reducing the cost to local authorities. However, some local authorities may not have their own facilities. How many local authorities use privately run facilities? There will undoubtedly be additional costs to local authorities, despite the offset to be received from the EPR levy.

Who, or which organisation, will the EPR scheme administrator be, and when is the appointment likely to be? It will be important for local authorities and businesses to know this in sufficient time before the implementation.

I apologise for the number of questions, but I am keenly interested in this subject and ensuring that the scheme operates effectively. I support the SI but am concerned that its implementation should operate efficiently and effectively.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview of this statutory instrument. I am very grateful for the detail. As your Lordships’ House will be aware, there was much discussion in the other place about the detail of this SI and its financial impact. Although I do not wish to rerun the debate, it would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could provide us with a little more information.

Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that a post-implementation review of the original 2016 regulations “was completed in 2020”, and it made a number of recommendations about changes to the regulations. Other than the need to make this change to support the rollout of extended producer responsibility for packaging, why has it taken the department three years to bring the instrument forward? Are any other changes due and, if so, when can we expect to see them?

A key justification for this instrument is that new data will improve quality monitoring and the consistency of recycling collections. There remain, however, substantial differences between recycling collections across different parts of the country, and we know that work on new schemes, including the deposit return scheme for plastic bottles, is behind schedule. Given the complexity, why have these workstreams not been given greater priority?

Paragraph 7.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that all material facilities must

“comply with the regulations from 1 October 2024”.

Can the Minister outline what steps would be taken if material facilities are found not to be complying?

During debate in the other place, it was made clear that stakeholders are concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the implementation of the new regime. Paragraph 11.1 states that guidance is forthcoming, but it would be fair to say that the Government have an occasionally poor track record on providing timely guidance. Can the Minister commit to a fixed date to reassure the sector? Also highlighted in the House of Commons was a survey that found that over half of recycling facilities lacked the space to undertake the enhanced sampling required under these regulations. What kind of advice or support is Defra providing? If there are extra costs, either in relation to these checks or arising from the need to store data for longer, where will they fall?

Finally, I wonder whether the Minister can build on the discussion in the other place and the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, regarding the lack of an impact assessment and the discrepancy in views between stakeholders and the department, with some material facilities suggesting that 80 new staff will have to be employed, at a cost of £1 million a year. What additional conversations has the department had, what reviews are being put in place to judge the impact and what are the timescales for these? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank the noble Baronesses for their interest in this. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, is a waste nerd. Her social life is fascinating—having dinners discussing this—and I will seek to answer in a way that respects her genuine expertise. She is absolutely right that consumers will play a key role. In a way, this also responds to what consumers are demanding. When I was a councillor, my local authority recycled and diverted away from landfill approximately 17% of waste. I am glad to say that the administration who took it over raised the rate of diversion away from landfill to 90%. Householders are determined that the circular economy described by the noble Baroness should be relevant to their lives. They object dramatically to the idea that waste diverted from landfill goes to other countries, so we want to make sure that we are creating a circular economy in this country and that there are markets for the amount of waste produced.

The noble Baroness is right that we are increasing the amount we require to be checked to 60 kilograms per 75 tonnes. After close consultation and discussions with experts and local authorities and working with materials facilities operators, we think that is realistic and will give us the data we require to have a really clear view of what is being provided by these facilities. I cannot tell her what percentage will be separated waste and what will be mixed waste because different local authorities have different contracts and arrangements, but I assure her that we are involved in a detailed level of engagement and that issues such as the EPR administrator are fundamental to making sure that this progresses.

Both noble Baronesses raised the question of deposit return schemes. Noble Lords will be aware that we want to try to align our deposit return scheme across the United Kingdom, if possible. That has required us to talk closely to Scotland—which has, frankly, messed it up—and we now seem to be in a position to take forward, by some point in 2025, an effective and meaningful deposit return scheme that will deliver a massive environmental benefit. I am reminded that the plastic bag levy has seen a reduction in the use of plastic bags of more than 95%. We think that a properly structured deposit return scheme should have only a marginal inflationary effect and should incentivise people to be part of a scheme that will see a dramatic reduction in waste.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, touched on the timescale of the deferral. The deferral does not apply to all obligations and requirements under EPR. The start of producer payments under EPR will be deferred by 12 months. This addresses another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. Producers obligated under EPR are still required to collect and report data as per existing regulations. We need this data to develop and then share estimated EPR fees. Gathering and sharing this information will help businesses prepare for these changes, and it is something that businesses have asked for. EPR payments deferral will also impact on some specific timelines, including the introduction of modulated fees and binned packaging waste fees and payments.

We are concerned about cost, and our response to the consultation on the EPR scheme included an impact assessment, which has been referred to and which covered the expected costs to materials facilities. As we developed the amending legislation, the definition and types of materials facilities that would be in scope were clarified. As a result, we updated our assumptions regarding the number of facilities that would be in scope from 739 to 159, reducing the sampling burden where possible. Using these updated numbers, we have estimated a lower cost associated with this legislation.

This is really important: the costs associated with the new requirements within this SI were found to be lower than previously estimated in the impact assessment produced for the EPR scheme. Although the scope has reduced, the methodology to estimate the impact on the materials facilities of enhanced sampling remains unchanged from the previously published EPR impact assessment.