MPs debate EPR and impact on the glass sector

A debate was held on 14 May in Westminster Hall, House of Commons, relating to the impact of EPR on the glass packaging sector.  

The discussion was moved by Sarah Champion, Chair of the International Development Committee and attended by several MPs, including Mary Creagh - Parliamentary Under-Secretary for DEFRA.  

The minister stated the glass manufacturing industry currently supports around 120,000 jobs, is worth roughly £2.2bn and is a highly sustainable packaging material, given its unlimited recyclability. However, she raised concerns over the ‘potential decimation’ of the sector under Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging (pEPR) measures, and specifically the costs glass packaging producers will soon occur given the fees are set by weight, not volume.   

Sarah Champion went on to state she found it ‘irrational’ that the weight-based fees ‘pushed people towards using lighter alternatives – particularly plastic’. Furthermore, the glass industry in some instances will be paying ‘double’ as packaging eligible for pEPR costs will often be disposed of in hospitality venues, that pay the private waste sector for collections, instead of the kerbside.  

‘Fair fee setting’ 

The case was made, however, that due to the significant weight of glass, transport and recycling is naturally more energy intensive, hence a higher pEPR fee is likely more appropriate. Mary Creagh went on to state that pEPR transfers the ‘cost of recycling from the taxpayers to packaging producers’ and that government’s extensive discussions with industry has resulted in ‘fair fee setting’. She indicated that the per tonne fee for glass packaging, in comparison to aluminium and plastic for instance,  is indeed lower – at an indicative rate of £240 per tonne - and given its comparative weight ‘cost[s] more to handle per unit’.  

Producers should expect their final waste management fee invoices this summer, ahead of the first invoice due in October this year.  

Reflecting true recycling costs

Jon Brookes, our Partnerships Director, commented: "Using weight as the metric on which to base fees has always been part of the system, but it is now becoming clear – given the additional local authority costs pEPR introduces – this represents a more significant challenge for some materials over others which isn't necessarily reflective of recyclability."

"Ensuring the fees paid per material are truly reflective of its cost to transport, handle and recycle will take some time, but we hope it becomes a feature of the system as costs and data become more accurate. The additional compliance costs producers will soon incur under pEPR for all material categories, only highlights the need to start re-evaluating packaging chains – for instance by embracing reuse. And over time, we hope the systems will evolve to also consider other factors that will truly unlock a circular economy."

You can read a full transcript of the debate here.