Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend also accept that because glass is heavier than other products, it costs more to recycle and transport? It may break during transport, so it is not the case that it is a more sustainable product.

[Sarah Champion]

I have not heard that or seen any evidence of that. All I can say is that in Wales, 95% of the glass is kerbside-collected and recycled. I do not know where my hon. Friend’s stats come from. If she would like to share them with me and the industry, I would like to have a look.

Glass produced in Turkey is not currently covered by emissions trading, so the CO₂ emitted is not captured by matching penalties. In addition, Turkish glass manufacturers have built factories in organised industrial zones and benefit from Government support in the form of lower water, natural gas or telecommunications costs, as well as a lower taxation scheme.

The lower cost base, supported by the Turkish Government in the form of state aid, is assisting Turkey in targeting export prices at rates that are lower than UK factory costs. However, it is the baseline fees set for glass under the extended producer responsibility that are set to be the hammer-blow. And the hammer administering that blow is being wielded by a Labour Government, which I find hugely disappointing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sarah Champion]

Not at the moment.

In the meantime, our Government are driving packaging customers decisively and permanently away from glass. If, for example, a brand sells 1 million half-litre bottles, the EPR fees for glass would be £72,000. If, on the other hand, the brand decides to put its product into plastic or aluminium, it will pay no EPR fees whatsoever. Officials and Ministers have argued that materials that are part of a deposit return scheme will be subject to set-up costs, and it is on those grounds that they are granted exemption from EPR fees for close to two and a half years. Yet those set-up costs are still unknown publicly and therefore cannot be, and have not been, considered by brands and retailers when making their packaging choices. The truth is that brands and retailers can avoid the imminent threat of additional costs from EPR by switching away from glass packaging to not pay EPR fees on their beverage products. Once those producers have decided to switch packaging materials, they must invest in new filling technology, and that makes it highly unlikely that they will ever switch back to glass.

This is not a hypothetical problem. The glass industry is already seeing evidence of material-switching to less recyclable packaging. I know that DEFRA has been sent a great deal of evidence of material-switching but, let us be honest, this policy choice does not seem based on evidence but on some unfathomable ideology.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Sarah Champion]

I am sorry, no.

In public, and in response to correspondence, DEFRA stated that there is no, or not enough, evidence of material-switching. That is simply not true. The industry, our businesses, and the sectors affected have supplied that evidence. It makes me wonder whether there is any threshold of evidence that would result in a rethink of the scheme.

DEFRA has highlighted the modulation of future EPR fees to address those expansive concerns, but let us be honest, even at the earliest point that such modulation would be introduced, huge and likely terminal damage will already have been done to glass manufacturers. It is not clear under the current guidelines whether glass will receive a reduction in fees, and it could even receive a fee increase in the future. Fees are currently charged retrospectively so, given the lack of confirmed information on the level of fees that glass will face, the costs are essentially unrecoverable. How can businesses be expected to operate under this profound uncertainty about their current and future costs?

For DEFRA, “reuse” often represents a magic bullet that will address all concerns, if only the industry would get onboard. The glass sector is keen to be part of the development of reuse and glass is the perfect material for it, but we must accept that large-scale national reuse systems are at least a decade away because there is currently no reuse infrastructure. Furthermore, not all products are suitable for reuse. Glass manufacturers can already supply reusable bottles, but a reuse scheme is much more than that. It would require significant buy-in across the whole supply chain.

The Minister also needs to recognise that not all glass bottles are for drinks. Beatson Clark, in my constituency, manufactures medicine bottles. Reuse is a laudable goal and one that the glass industry is keen to collaborate with the Government to achieve, but it is being repeatedly deployed as grounds to ignore the industry’s concerns about EPR. Reuse and EPR are two separate issues, and the conflation seems a deliberate muddying of the debate. The short-term impact of EPR could destroy the UK glass industry long before plans for reuse are even on the drawing board.

DEFRA has stated that the recycling reforms will add at least 21,000 new jobs and £10 billion to the UK economy, and stimulate the growth on which the Government are rightly focused. Yet it is unclear how those new jobs will be created. They are unlikely to be the kind of wealth-generating jobs that we currently have in the glass sector—jobs that are based in our manufacturing heartland, which really needs that work. Even if the Minister’s prediction were true, why risk existing jobs? Why not take the time to get EPR right and have both?

This is not scaremongering. The glass packaging industry is being driven into a crisis directly of the Government’s own making. UK glass manufacturers are already reporting that demand is down by 20%—although the EPR policy has been in place for only a month—and that low-cost imports have increased to help to absorb EPR costs.

On paper, I get that the Government are ostensibly seeking to encourage recycling, while recovering the cost to the public purse of its delivery. That is the right objective, but their approach will achieve the exact opposite. It will encourage switching to less recyclable materials; add costs to businesses such as pubs and breweries already struggling under inflationary and other cost pressures; and increase prices for consumers. If the concerns of industry are not addressed today, the Government also risk destroying our domestic capacity, leaving us reliant on highly polluting foreign imports.

I have raised these issues with the Minister time and again, as have other hon. Members, British Glass and individual businesses. I cannot therefore understand the reticence to engage with these very real problems. The origins of EPR lie with the previous Administration, but by continuing this flawed and ultimately self-defeating approach, a Labour Government risk destroying a great British industry. Does the Minister really want to be responsible for killing off our most recyclable packaging producer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate.

In the 10 months since I was elected MP for Ealing Southall, one issue has been raised with me more than any other: litter and fly-tipping. That is why I have made it my business as an MP to campaign on the issue, and that is why I welcome the extended producer responsibility regulations. They sound complicated, but they mean that the businesses that make the packaging that ends up on our streets and in our parks need to pay for that packaging to be recycled or disposed of. It is the polluter pays principle, and it makes complete sense to my constituents in Ealing Southall.

Up to now, local councils have had to pay the full cost of getting rid of that rubbish, and that means it is actually local council tax payers who foot the bill. That is not fair, and I know that my constituents will welcome the businesses that produce the packaging finally being forced to pay for it. When they buy a SIM card on the internet, they wonder why it comes with so much plastic and paper packaging. The new system means that businesses will face extra costs for that, which will give them a reason to reduce packaging, taking rubbish out of the system in the first place. For my constituents, that will mean less cardboard and plastic strewn on our streets.

The new system will also mean that Ealing council will now get an extra £4.7 million this year from the levy. It sounds like a lot of money, but in fact it costs £30 million every year to collect and get rid of all our rubbish. It is only right that the people who produce the rubbish should have to pay at least some of that massive cost.

[Sarah Champion]

Will my hon. Friend please assure her constituents that the whole sector supports EPR, but that, because of the two-year lag, there will be more plastic on her streets, not less?

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am afraid that the glass industry is perpetuating some of these untruths, and it just needs to get on board with the policy—it constantly wants to delay, but we need to make EPR happen now.

The glass industry says that it does not support the policy and that glass is more recyclable than other products. Let it tell that to my constituents, who see glass bottles in black sack fly-tips in parks, or dropped in little piles on streets where people have been street drinking, every day. In fact, just 43% of glass is recycled back into bottles. The glass industry also says that glass is being treated unfairly compared with plastic and cans, but plastic and cans will be included in the deposit return scheme, as we have already heard. Glass had the opportunity to be part of the scheme and the industry lobbied hard not be included. I congratulate it—it did a good job—but it cannot get off scot-free. It is either part of the reverse vending machine plan or part of the “polluter pays” system that we are talking about today. It has to be in one or the other—it creates litter and it must pay for the cost of clearing it up. Council tax payers cannot be left to continue picking up the tab.

The glass industry also says that it is being charged more than it should be, because the fees are based on weight. As I have said, weight is important: the heavier a product is, the more it costs to transport for recycling. It is also breakable, which increases the cost further, and glass costs a lot more to recycle, both in money and in carbon, as the heat has to be so high. Recycled glass bottles use 75% of the energy needed to make new bottles, compared with just 15% for reuse. The charges in the plan are based on the estimated costs to councils of recycling glass, and the industry needs to understand that. Glass really does need to come up with a sustainable plan for reuse, rather than arguing against the tide of the “polluter pays” principle.

I know the published fees are still in draft so that the Minister and her Department can ensure they are fair and based on actual costs. I have a lot of sympathy for the pub and restaurant businesses that might be affected, but the Department is looking in detail at some of the points raised, so I am sure a sensible solution will be found. It is important to emphasise that clean streets are vital for pubs and restaurants—they will not make money if no one wants to go to their mucky town centre.

The final argument from the industry is that it does not think the fees it pays will be spent on waste and recycling. I have heard that a lot, but already my local council in Ealing is making plans to spend some of the money on cracking down on fly-tipping. It will use CCTV by Southall common and treat fly-tipping as an environmental crime with police tape and a cordon, based on work by Keep Britain Tidy. Ealing council also has plans to open a new reuse centre in Acton.

There are calls from the glass industry, as we have heard, to delay the “polluter pays” levy, but I strongly urge the Minister to resist those calls. The previous Government delayed taking action, which led to rubbish on our streets increasing by more than one third on their watch. People in Ealing Southall want cleaner streets. They are sick to death of bottles, cans, cardboard, mattresses, sofas and all the rest of it blighting their community. The Government have already shown they are deadly serious about making local areas feel loved again. Let us get on with sorting out the mess and bring in the new law to clean up our streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this debate, although I fear she is not going to agree with what I am about to say.

Glass is one of the most used materials in the world—we have used it for thousands of years. In ancient times, glassmaking was viewed as mysterious and magical. It is a really special product and we use a lot of it in this country. I think that the extended producer responsibility is the right way to go. We are talking about recycling, reusing and reducing. There is a business in my constituency called ecoSIP, run by a man called Alex Taylor. He is a supporter of the EPR scheme; I suspect that the Minister will be pleased that there is a business that does support it. He wrote to me and said:

“We are supporters of the EPR scheme. We believe it forces companies to take responsibility for the emissions and waste that they create, and provides incentives to decarbonise.”

He is part of a UK-led green packaging revolution. It is happening in Leighton Buzzard, but also across the east of England—in Ipswich, for example—and right across our country. EcoSIP is on a mission to decarbonise the drinks industry with lightweight, low-carbon packaging. I have been to visit and I have seen the little packages used for its wine. Each pouch uses just 2.5 grams of material. Its packaging uses 90% less CO₂ than glass, yet the wine inside tastes just as good. We need to take that on board, not least because we are in the midst of a climate emergency.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Is my hon. Friend aware of Frugalpac, which produces wine containers in Ipswich, and is similarly trying to wean us off our reliance on glass and other unsustainable packaging and to offer green jobs in this country?

[Alex Mayer]

I am absolutely aware of Frugalpac in Ipswich. The east of England, where I am from, is leading the charge.

These modern green manufacturing organisations face certain issues. I urge the Minister to talk to other Departments as well, not least about the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988, which I am told makes it illegal to sell 125 ml portions, which is what an average person would normally order as a glass of wine, in this modern packaging. There is stuff to be done, but luckily that is not a DEFRA thing.

There will always be a role for glass. It looks pretty—there is a bottle of it here. I love my Bonne Maman jars. We are never going to be able to turn an ecoSIP container into a candlestick holder. But we have to crack down on waste and boost recycling. The extended producer responsibility is an important first step, not least because it will also create 21,000 jobs and put a £10 billion investment into recycling, which is really welcome. In conclusion, I urge the Minister not to bottle it and to make sure that she goes full steam ahead.