Waste Management Sites

Sarah Pochin Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on securing the debate.

It is so important that I speak on this issue, as in my constituency we have an incinerator operated by a company called Viridor, which has been in operation for the last 12 years. Like the example in Fleetwood, it processes waste from all around the country, very little of which is produced by the actual residents of Runcorn. Local residents have to live with the problems that hon. Members have talked about this afternoon, including dreadful smells at times and rubbish strewn around the approaching roads from the heavy goods vehicles that deliver the waste. There is noise 24 hours a day—the HGVs have an operational licence for 24 hours a day, and there is the mechanical noise from the plant itself. Every day, 275 HGVs are allowed to go in and out of the plant. I have stood there, endlessly watching one after another. The noise and smell are horrific, with 3,000 tonnes of waste processed in the plant every day. The air pollution at times is a disgrace. As we have heard, people cannot hang out their washing. There are even layers of dust on cars. There is a physical and mental effect on health. Local residents cannot sleep or open their windows. Light pollution from the headlights of HGVs coming down the road is constant through the night, which is worse in winter, of course.

As a consequence, local house prices are severely devalued. Why should residents have to move, when some have lived there all their lives? Now, even if they wanted to move, they cannot sell their homes because of the incinerator and they feel trapped. On that note, I ask the Minister to consider offering financial support to those families who are unable to move because they cannot sell their homes due to the proximity of incinerators such as the one in Runcorn.

To return to the operator, in December 2023, Viridor paid out £1 million across 180 local households to keep them quiet. They signed a non-disclosure agreement so they could never talk to the press about the conditions they live in. That £4,500 per household is a lot of money for some of my residents, and would have been especially welcome at Christmas. It was meant to keep them quiet and it is a disgrace.

I would like to echo the points made about the Environment Agency. It should be timely in its response; it is no good residents ringing and the Environment Agency coming out a week later, when the smog or smell has gone. There are now also issues with vermin such as rats and flies, and concerns about diseases spread by birds flying in and out of operating doors left open. Those doors are meant to shut between each delivery but are left open for birds to fly in and out, potentially spreading disease.

The burden of proof is always on the residents to clock and document all this. Why should it be that way? I again ask the Minister to shift the burden of proof from the residents and give the Environment Agency the power to shut down the operation until the complaint or issue is sorted. It is often not just one major incident, such as a fire—it is a continual build-up, wearing down residents until they are desperate. They feel forgotten and unheard.

Deprived towns such as Runcorn have been used as a dumping ground for the nation’s rubbish. The least the Government can do is listen to residents, let their voices be heard and compensate them for what is happening to their day-to-day lives.

Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

Sarah Pochin Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion]

A plethora of interventions, but I have to go to the sister at the back first.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

In my constituency, I also have a phenomenal glass manufacturer, called Encirc. It has three sites across the UK, employing over 2,000 people. It is unfairly penalised by this tax, because it is about weight. As the hon. Lady has pointed out, this is encouraging manufacturers of things like tonic to switch to aluminium and plastic, which are infinitely less recyclable than glass. It is also competing against imports from countries like Turkey, so not only are we facing the increased carbon emissions from shipping over the glass, but the glass is less pure and is therefore not as recyclable. I would ask the Minister urgently to look at this tax—I have already asked for that—and very quickly to bring in a 75% reduction while she considers its overall implications.

[Sarah Champion]

I hope to amplify the hon. Lady’s points later in my speech. Glass is not just another packaging material; it is infinitely recyclable.

Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Sarah Pochin Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.