Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I wanted to give the hon. Lady a chance to get back into the swing of things before intervening, but as she is talking about a valuable business in her constituency, let me say that the pub and brewery sector in Woking represents £100 million and 1,800 jobs to our local economy; those numbers used to be higher but, sadly our small brewery, Thurstons, had to close. The EPR was one of several factors that hit that brewery. Does she agree that we need a change from the Government on the EPR, as well as wider support for the sector?

[Sarah Champion]

I completely agree. Trying to level the playing field on this EPR measure is the one thing that I hope the Minister will give us comfort on today. Our hospitality industry is really suffering. More generally, I worry where the remaining places of community are in our towns, cities and villages. If we are not protecting the ones we have—the few we have—it is going to be a very dark future. Let me now get back to glass.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

That is absolutely my concern. People do not talk about the impact on the supply chain. We already know that at least 350 jobs—more than 5% of the direct workforce—have been lost so far, but we do not know about the impact on the supply chains and associated businesses. These are not abstract numbers; these are well-paid, highly skilled manufacturing jobs, concentrated in industrial communities like mine, where, to be honest, such opportunities are at a real premium.

Since I first raised these issues nearly two years ago, I have been contacted by a range of businesses and industry groups, including: UK Hospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the UK Spirits Alliance, the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates, O-I Glass, the Scotch Whisky Association, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, GMB, Unite, AB InBev, the all-party parliamentary beer group, the APPG on packaging in the circular economy, the Packaging Federation, Teva Pharmaceuticals, British Glass, and the Campaign for Real Ale. Their concerns are strikingly similar.

The EPR is not just affecting glass. Across the packaging sector, businesses are struggling in the face of this poorly designed, poorly implemented policy. Graphic Packaging International employs 57 people in my constituency, and upwards of 1,700 across the UK. It produces a range of fibre-based packaging for household goods, supplying major UK retailers with sustainable and innovative products, which are largely made from renewable or recyclable raw materials. However, like glass, they face unfairly high fees on the basis of being a heavier than their plastic equivalents.

That distortion is even greater for fibre-based composite packaging. Industry groups have identified what appear to be substantial errors in the methodology used for DEFRA’s EPR fee calculations for fibre-based packaging. By way of example, in the EPR fee cost breakdown, the cost of FBC collection is more than twice that of paper and board, yet it is collected for recycling with paper and board. How can the costs to local authorities be so radically different?

Similar anomalies are observed with other EPR cost categories, including sorting, residual collection and handling and disposal overheads. Costs for managing FBC should be similar to those for paper and board, yet are wildly disproportionate. Industry groups believe that that results from DEFRA seeming to have used data for another, wholly distinct type of FBC—beverage cartons—in its FBC fee calculation. Such elementary errors risk undermining the EPR’s core objectives. The Alliance for Fibre-Based Packaging has already reported evidence that long-standing shifts away from plastic towards more sustainable alternatives are slowing and, in some cases, reversing altogether.

[Mr Forster]

I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous with her time. I remember her making the same points in her Westminster Hall debate on the EPR back in May 2025. I made similar points in my Westminster Hall debate on beer tax—draught duty—in which we also talked about the EPR. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is really disappointing that a year on, the Government, and DEFRA in particular, have not listened to our concerns?

[Sarah Champion]

I think it is infinitely more than disappointing, but I will follow the hon. Member’s parliamentary language: it is hugely frustrating. Colleagues here are raising the real, human costs of that. Something needs to change, and I do not want that change to be us losing our hospitality and renewable packaging industries.

Hospitality businesses have faced similarly unfathomable logic from DEFRA. EPR fees are meant to offset the cost to local authorities of handling and recycling waste. Hospitality businesses’ waste is not collected through public collections, but through commercial waste removal contracts. Yet perversely, the annual burden to British pubs for EPR fees has been estimated by the British Beer and Pub Association to be £50 million. Hospitality businesses are, in effect, being told to pay for the same thing twice. DEFRA has long been aware of this anomaly—I thank the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for his debate on it—but nothing has been done to address it.

Packaging EPR fees will disproportionately affect generic medicines, where high-volume, low-margin products risk becoming commercially unviable, increasing the likelihood of supply disruption, medicine withdrawal from the UK and higher costs to the NHS. Medicines manufacturers have minimal flexibility to redesign packaging, because primary packaging is tightly regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

The Government’s one-size-fits-all approach is revealed again when we consider social enterprises. The Minister will no doubt be familiar with Belu, which supplies water for parliamentary catering—indeed, Belu water bottles are in front of us on the Table right now. Belu donates 100% of its net profits to WaterAid, which supports clean water, sanitation and hygiene programmes around the world. However, while charities are rightly exempt from EPR fees, no such exemption exists for social enterprises, which are treated exactly the same as for-profit companies. The result for Belu is £1.1 million of EPR costs over the next two years—money that would otherwise be donated to WaterAid.

The EPR system adds complexity and uncertainty for businesses. Baseline fees were not finalised until very shortly before liability for EPR was due to begin. Fee modulation remains unclear, and the system allows for retrospective fee calculation, potentially creating exposure to unplanned costs late in the financial cycle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I am looking to my officials in the Box, and I think it is probably safest if I write to my hon. Friend on that issue.

Let me tell the House about the year 1 shortfall in fees. There was a shortfall in the fees this year as we allowed packaging producers to submit their tonnages and then their tonnages reduced because, obviously, they looked at their figures and reduced them. We listened to industry on that. Despite the regulations saying that actually industry should make up any shortfall, my Department took pressure off businesses by funding on an exceptional basis to hold fees down. We are taking steps this year to ensure that we do not have a repeat of that.

On early successes, we are hearing about PEPR bringing about change. Councils all over the UK are using this funding from the packaging industry to improve services to local people. In Tameside, the metropolitan council is investing £1.6 million in new vehicles and improved technology to deliver a more reliable service for taxpayers. Councils are investing to improve glass collection directly, which should benefit the industry in terms of the supply of high-quality cullet. For example, Aberdeenshire council is investing £5 million over 2 years to purchase a new three-compartment glass collection vehicle—I hope that is “vehicles”, but it says “vehicle” here—upgrading glass recycling points to reduce contamination, and improving the quality of glass recyclate, which we know really matters to the glass industry.

[Mr Forster]

I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. I am sure she can probably understand why I, Asahi, which is based in Woking, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and others are not satisfied with her answers today. I have heard nothing of the double taxation, which is what EPR is. Will she agree to meet me, the hon. Member, other MPs and, more importantly, the businesses impacted to fully understand the impact and to work out a way forward?

[Sarah Champion]

Perhaps the hon. Member was distracted when I mentioned the issue of me holding a roundtable with all these industries on this very issue, but I am happy to meet colleagues from across the House on these issues. I explained in the point that he perhaps missed that it is tricky because it has to be regulatable—we have to ensure that the regulator can verify what would happen. Of course, it is a complex micro-econometric model. As soon as fees are reduced in one area, they go up in another area. That is the bottom line on all this.

[Mr Forster]

I might have been distracted in the last eight minutes—I do not know why. I remember hearing that the Minister said she has held a roundtable. I do remember that it was last year, and I am keen for her to meet the stakeholders again before this wider consultation and what happens next—hence my request.

[Mary Creagh]

Obviously, I do not sit there and do the maths with people. These suggestions and potential solutions have to be modelled and worked through. We are working at pace to assess whether any targeted short-term measures could be introduced through the forthcoming PEPR amending statutory instrument to partially address the dual-use packaging issue. So we are working on a short-term solution, but we are also working on a longer-term solution, which is the Austrian model that I mentioned. Again, the hon. Gentleman may have been distracted by the whistle when I mentioned that.

Councils across the country are rebranding and upgrading their glass recycling points to make it easier for households to use glass recycling facilities and to reduce the contamination that we know is so important to avoid in glassmaking. We have made a £5.3 million investment in that over a couple of years, and those changes are happening on the ground.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, reuse is not a short-term fix. It was once the norm when a lot of us—perhaps not all hon. Members present in the Chamber—were growing up, and it can be again. In some ways the future looks like the past—let us hope that is not the case for the England game. PEPR creates a powerful financial incentive for glass producers to move to reuse. Running reuse schemes means producers avoid most PEPR fee obligations, and glass, as we have heard, is a durable, tried and tested technology.

While it requires up-front investment and system change, it shifts costs away from single-use production and disposal, it improves supply chain resilience and reduces costs over time. Reuse is already operating at scale internationally, particularly for glass. Reusing a glass bottle just five times can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by more than a third. The more times they are reused, the greater the benefits will be.

As we have heard today, the issue is not just about the environment; it is also about jobs, communities and the long-term health of British industry. The industry estimates that these reforms will create 25,000 jobs and underpin £10 billion of investment in new sorting and processing facilities. The reforms will drive that improvement in our recycling rate and, crucially, they will reduce our carbon emissions.

In conclusion, glass matters, industry matters and glassworkers matter. This Government back businesses and workers, and we back the transition to a circular economy that makes the country stronger, cleaner and more resilient. Change is coming to EPR and I reassure all hon. Members that we want to have a predictable, well set out framework within which business can confidently operate and householders can confidently know that what they put in their recycling streams is going to have a second, and hopefully third and fourth, life.

Question put and agreed to.

Animal Welfare Strategy

Will Forster Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

The short answer to my hon. Friend—I am sure you will appreciate this, Mr Speaker—is yes.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The top animal welfare issue raised with me by my constituents is the impact of fireworks—particularly ad hoc and unannounced displays—on pets and their owners. Please will the Secretary of State reassure me and others across the House, who I am sure are concerned about that issue as well, that the strategy will finally tackle it and provide much-needed relief to pets and their owners?

[Emma Reynolds]

That is raised with me in my constituency too. It is a tricky issue, however, because there are lots of people across the country who, at different religious festivals and obviously on Guy Fawkes day, enjoy fireworks. It is about getting the balance right.

Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Will Forster Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Thank you, Ms Lewell; I will endeavour to keep to five minutes. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this timely debate so soon after the Budget.

As the hon. Lady said, there is growing concern about the extended producer responsibility scheme. I call it the “glass bottle tax” if I am trying to explain it to a constituent I am having a drink with in one of Woking’s pubs, because they do not get EPR. They understand that it is a glass bottle tax, but they do not get the reasoning behind it.

EPR is intended to reduce waste and increase recycling, which are aims that we all probably share. However, the scheme risks hurting our economy, and especially the hospitality sector, which has suffered so much during the covid pandemic and the cost of living crisis. That is especially true in my constituency. We are proud to have 34 pubs and one brewery—Thurstons in Horsell. We are also home to the brewing giant Asahi, which owns and operates Fuller’s brewery in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), which I have had the pleasure of visiting—in my opinion, it counts as a constituency visit.

I am very glad to have Thurstons and Asahi, and I am very glad that Woking has a thriving hospitality community, but it is under threat. The hospitality industry supports over 2,000 jobs and contributes £131 million to our economy, yet the glass bottle tax will impose more than £150 million in new costs on brewers for glass packaging alone. At a time when businesses are struggling with inflation, energy prices and higher taxes, that additional burden will deter investment and put jobs at risk.

Will the Minister commit to reviewing EPR fees in the light of decisions announced at yesterday’s Budget? The fact that beer duty is rising in line with inflation will have an impact, and will add yet another cost at a time when hospitality is already under pressure. Brewers and pubs tell me that they cannot absorb both. The continued effect of higher beer duty, which is way out of kilter with our European neighbours, and EPR charges will inevitably reduce investment and will add to the growing trend of pubs and hospitality venues being closed down.

The Government cannot tax their way to growth. There are serious issues with double charging. Although EPR is meant to apply only to household waste, many pubs already pay for commercial waste collection. Despite that, the sector faces £60 million in costs, with some larger pubs paying as much as £2,000 more each year.

DEFRA has accepted the flaw but does not have a plan to correct it until year three of the scheme. That is not acceptable, and pubs cannot afford to wait that long. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what steps the Government will take now to prevent businesses from paying twice for the same waste. Will paying twice be backdated when the charges are introduced in year three?

The Office for Budget Responsibility has classified EPR as a tax, which adds further uncertainty to brewers and pub owners. Without clear guidance on reporting and future fees, businesses cannot plan, invest and expand. At a time when our economy needs stability, that uncertainty threatens growth, which is one of the Government’s key drivers.

The Liberal Democrats have proposed a 5 percentage point VAT cut on hospitality because we feel that we need to support the hospitality sector, particularly to compensate for EPR. Even if only half of that VAT cut were passed through, the average household would save £135 by April 2027. The remaining benefit would help businesses to stay open, protect jobs and support wages. We know that for a fact as we saw it with the 2008 VAT reduction, at least 52% of which was passed on to customers.

Our goal should be support responsible environmental reform while protecting pubs, breweries and the hospitality sector. They hold our British communities together, and they are a big part of the British way of life. Like the hon. Member for Gower, I urge the Minister to listen to the industry. Will the Government address the risks of double charging in our economy? Can they provide clarification on fees? Will the Minister work with Cabinet colleagues to reduce the harm to the brewing and hospitality sector?

Oral Answers to Questions

Will Forster Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

That is certainly something that I would be very happy to discuss with CPS colleagues and to provide a full response on.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Today has seen the publication of the safeguarding review into the murder of my 10-year-old constituent Sara Sharif. The findings of that inquiry are what I feared—that the state, especially Surrey county council, could have protected her and saved her life, but did not. Will the Solicitor General please meet me to ensure we can urgently implement the 15 recommendations of that report in order to protect children and girls in future?

[The Solicitor General]

I thank the hon. Member for raising a—

Oral Answers to Questions

Will Forster Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I am sorry to hear about the position that the hon. Member’s constituents have been put in. It is a terrible example, which I am sure needs to be looked at much more closely. As he knows, the Serious Fraud Office is operationally independent. As a highly specialist agency, it takes on a number of complex economic crime cases each year. The case he raises may be one for it; it may also be one for Action Fraud. I am more than happy to examine it further and to raise it with the appropriate agency.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

6. What steps she is taking with the Crown Prosecution Service to help reduce the backlog of court cases.

[The Solicitor General]

The Government inherited a record court backlog in the Crown court. On taking office, we took immediate action, including by funding a record high number of sitting days. The CPS is playing its part to help tackle these issues. That includes setting up a surge team, which has completed more than 12,000 pre-charge decisions, contributing significantly to reducing the backlog.

[Mr Forster]

The Solicitor General confirms the horrendous backlog in the Crown court to us all. In one case in my constituency, one victim, Dani, will have to wait more than six years to get justice. Dani is just 21 and has been a victim of grooming and sexual abuse. Does the Solicitor General agree that for Dani and many others, justice delayed is justice denied? What further urgent steps will the Government take to tackle the backlog?

[The Solicitor General]

I am extremely sorry to hear about Dani’s case. The previous Government closed over 260 court buildings, and the human cost of the delays as a result of the backlog is really considerable. Victims are waiting years for justice, and attrition in rape cases in particular has more than doubled in the last five years. As I said, on taking office we took immediate action, and not only in relation to sitting days. We have also committed to investing up to £92 million more a year in criminal legal aid, and we are taking action to ensure that there are more specialist counsel available, too.

Thames Water

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman points with a graphic example to what happens when we face the scale of regulatory failure that developed untroubled under the previous Government. That is why Sir Jon Cunliffe has brought forward his report today, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will read; I hope he will also provide Sir Jon with feedback, which he is asking for ahead of his final report in a month’s time. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have helped to secure £104 billion of private sector investment by the conclusion of the price review period. That will be used to upgrade exactly the kind of facilities that he points to, which are letting down his constituents and mine, and those of everyone else in the House.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

With a third of customers’ bills going to service Thames Water’s debt, my constituents are fed up of paying higher bills for Thames Water’s mistakes. Will the Government agree to put Thames Water into special measures to save my constituents and bill payers money? It is only a matter of time for Thames Water; will the Secretary of State act now and save people money?

[Steve Reed]

I share the hon. Gentlemen’s anger that the public have been left to pay the price of Tory failure over 14 years. One of the first things I did when I was appointed Secretary of State was get the water company chief execs into my office, seven days after the election. I got them to commit to ringfencing customers’ money that is earmarked for investment, so that it can never again be diverted to pay bonuses and dividends in the way that it was under the previous Conservative Government.

Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this really important debate so that we can collectively put pressure on the Government.

Times are hard. Things cost more and people are genuinely unhappy. What we do not want is to take away their beer or make it more expensive. The beer or pub sector in my constituency of Woking supports more than 1,800 jobs and contributes £100 million to Woking’s local economy. That is probably not surprising, as we are home to Asahi UK, a huge brand that covers Fuller’s, Peroni and Cornish Orchards, to name a few. Pubs are generally much more than just a business. They are hubs in our high streets and at the centre of our community life—places we go to watch a football match or take our grandparent on a Sunday afternoon to make sure they get out of the house. They are a fun place to drink pints with a few of your friends. Who here has been to the pub after a funeral, sharing stories about loved ones? I know I have, at The Cricketers in Horsell in my constituency. The core of what we are speaking about today is that pubs are really important places for people, and I am worried that the Government’s rules will undermine that.

In grief or in happiness, the British pub is an integral institution and always there for us—or so we hope; but the future of the pub is under threat. The Government’s poorly designed EPR scheme is a production tax in all but name, placing more than £100 million of new annual costs on brewers for glass packaging alone. The Liberal Democrats support the goal of making packaging and manufacturing more sustainable. We have long advocated improved recycling and a well-designed deposit return scheme, but the current approach to EPR risks doing more harm than good. It heaps unpredictable and escalating costs on to producers great and small—whether that is Asahi or the small brewery in my constituency, Thurstons —without offering clarity or stability that businesses need to plan for the future. For local brewers or publicans already battling inflation and higher taxes, these additional costs affect jobs and investment. Disastrously, this cost is also passed on to people going down the pub or buying a bottle of what they fancy from a shop. In Woking, it means a direct hit to ordinary people already struggling with the cost of living crisis.

This issue extends beyond my constituency. What is worse, this scheme is supposed to apply only to household waste, but the way it is currently designed means that pubs are charged double. Despite already paying for commercial waste collection, they now face an additional £60 million burden across the sector, with some larger venues expected to pay up to £2,000 extra each year. Even the Government have acknowledged that that is a flaw, yet this will not be fixed until year three of the scheme. That delay is not acceptable. Why should a struggling local pub in Woking, or any other constituency for that matter, be forced to bear unnecessary costs for the next two years while the Government dither?

It gets worse. The Office for Budget Responsibility has rightly classified EPR as a tax, yet businesses still lack the basic clarity around the final fees, the reporting rules or even whether they will be liable. Such uncertainty is paralysing for businesses already hurt by international or local events. How can small brewers or pubs make investment decisions when they do not know the rules of the game they will be playing or what the liabilities will be?

The impact of EPR extends beyond hospitality. Let us talk about glass, as the hon. Member for Rotherham did. More than 60% of glass packaging in the UK is produced domestically, but the EPR scheme risks pushing manufacturers to abandon glass altogether in favour of cheaper, less sustainable materials, such as our old friend plastic. We have seen similar schemes in the United States drive glass manufacturers out altogether. In the UK, more than 6,000 people work in the glass sector, and penalising them is the wrong thing to do. I therefore ask, urge and implore the Minister to commit to reviewing EPR in order to support the food and drink sector, especially in my Woking constituency. The Liberal Democrats and I support environmental initiatives, but not at the cost of local jobs, economic growth or the viability of businesses that hold our communities together. The Government must rethink this scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Will Forster Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

14. What steps he is taking to tackle fly-tipping.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

16. What steps he is taking to tackle fly-tipping.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

Happy spring equinox and happy World Sparrow Day to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone in the House.

Fly-tipping blights communities, harms the environment and places huge costs on taxpayers and businesses. Councils dealt with over 1 million incidents in 2023-24, some 6% more than in the previous year. This Government will crack down on fly-tipping by establishing clean-up squads comprised of those very individuals who dump rubbish in our communities. We are also tackling litter by introducing a ban on single-use vapes from 1 June this year and a deposit return scheme for drinks containers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

It is interesting what a difference a change in council leadership makes. I commend Councillor Ashworth and Councillor Wazir on their excellent work. This Government will introduce mandatory digital waste tracking from April 2026, and I will update the House on progress in May 2025. If people want their streets to be cleaned up, the answer is clear: vote Labour.

[Mr Forster]

Fly-tipping is a real concern in my constituency of Woking, but I understand that the previous Government introduced new powers that enabled Woking borough council and other local authorities to strengthen their actions against people who fly-tip. What impact have those measures had?

[Mary Creagh]

We have not assessed the impact, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman the latest statistics for his own council. There were more than 1,100 fly-tipping incidents, but just three fixed-penalty notices and no prosecutions. Local councillors are clearly making choices. We know that the latest statistics for fly-tipping show a rise of 6%, so it is clear that under the previous Government, this environmental crime was allowed to spiral out of control. I encourage all councils—of whatever colour—to make good use of their enforcement powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Member raises an important point. The CPS is working right across the country to ensure that victims feel more able to come forward and that its service to victims improves. She will understand that the court backlog is key; unfortunately, we inherited a record court backlog from the previous Government, and we have to tackle it. The Lord Chancellor is taking a range of measures to get it down, so that victims will have the confidence that when they come forward they will have their day in court and justice will be done.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

In Surrey alone there are 1,500 cases waiting to be heard in our Crown court, including 166 sexual offences against women and girls. Prosecutors have been telling victims that they have between two and five years to wait to get their day in court. That is appalling. Will the Solicitor General talk to the Ministry of Justice to reopen Woking’s court complex, which was closed by the Conservative Government, to provide greater legal capacity in Surrey?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Member is right to suggest that the root causes of the backlog are a direct result of Conservative choices and inaction. The previous Government closed more than 260 court buildings—in one year alone the Tories closed 84 magistrates courts—which clearly led to this considerable court backlog. I am pleased to say that the Lord Chancellor is taking action on that backlog by funding 108,500 sitting days in the Crown courts and increasing magistrates courts’ sentencing powers.