Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility
Sarah Pochin Excerpts(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this debate.
I come at this issue from a slightly different angle. In my constituency of Runcorn and Helsby, I have an incredibly impressive business, Encirc, one of the largest glass manufacturers in the UK. I have had the pleasure of visiting the factory and meeting the impressive team. It employs 1,000 people. Quite rightly, as the Member of Parliament for Runcorn and Helsby, it is my responsibility to do everything I can to protect jobs there.
Encirc is owned by Vidrala, which is looking at a £500 million investment in Encirc, which is so important for the north-west and for the UK. It is now reassessing that £500 million investment because of this tax, which is unfairly penalising glass as a material. I have jobs and investment at risk in my constituency.
On the impact of the EPR, first, the proposed level of the EPR for glass in this country is the highest of such schemes in the world. In Germany, for example, glass is cheaper than any other material for use in bottles. I ask the Minister to please reassess the level of fees for glass as a material.
Secondly, I want to point to the potential impact on manufacturing jobs and businesses. The 120,000 jobs in the glass manufacturing industry nationally are potentially affected, and could be endangered with these increased costs. The EPR is already causing significant business damage, leading to falling revenues in the UK glass manufacturing sector, primarily in the north of England.
Customers of my glass manufacturer are already switching to less environmentally friendly products. That is what does not make sense about the way that the Government have calculated the fees. Customers are switching to plastics or cans; glass is infinitely recyclable and those materials are not. From an environmental point of view, it just does not make sense.
There is a disproportionate burden on glass. Glass will bear £500 million of the £1.5 billion cost to businesses of this EPR in the current fee format, despite being less than 5% of total packaging in the UK. It is totally disproportionate, and penalises glass manufacturers.
The solution that I ask the Minister to look at is, first, urgently changing the inaccuracies in the current fee methodology, which includes glass having an inaccurately low value in EPR, inflating the EPR price. Secondly, would she please look at recalculating the fees based solely on volume, not weight, as soon as possible, to ensure that glass producers and users are not being unfairly penalised to the benefit of plastics and cans? We must act now to avoid further material switching by customers.
To summarise, I ask the Minister to look at moving from a weight-based fee calculation, which penalises glass and favours less environmentally friendly plastics and cans, to a volume-based fee calculation. In Runcorn and Helsby, 1,000 jobs and £500 million of investment are at risk.