Select committee: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Recommendation 9
Third Report - The price of plastic: ending the toll of plastic waste
Published 7 Nov 2022
Paragraph 47
Addressed to Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Plastic waste All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Recommendation (the committee's words)
We understand the logic behind some of the changes the previous Government made to its Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) proposals in response to the last consultation. We sympathise with the aim of reducing the financial impact on individual producers to avoid an escalation of food prices under EPR for packaging. However, there is a risk that exempting a large number of smaller producers from financial obligations—and no longer covering the costs of commercial waste— could undermine the scheme’s aims to make ‘polluters pay’ and incentivise more sustainable product design. We recommend that the Government should set out a roadmap for lowering the threshold for financial obligations under EPR so that by 2030, producers placing 1 tonne of packaging on the market or more should pay the cost of managing its disposal.
From: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Third Report - The price of plastic: ending the toll of plastic waste (HC 22), paragraph 47, 7 November 2022
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 27 January 2023 (deadline 7 January 2023).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The government agrees with the Committee on the importance of the waste hierarchy and on reuse, but disagrees with several recommendations, including dropping the qualifier "avoidable" from the 2042 plastic waste target and a ban on all plastic waste exports.
- It agrees that more use of reusable packaging is desirable and intends to "come forward with our proposals in 2024" on measures such as targets, obligations and whether there is a role for modulating fees.
- It disagrees with an exit strategy for the Packaging Waste Recovery Note system within a year of EPR starting, because it wants "to make sure we put the right measures in place at the right time".
- It disagrees with modulating the Plastic Packaging Tax, saying the 30% recycled content threshold is "ambitious", and keeps the rate and threshold "under review". Changes are a matter for Treasury Ministers.
- It disagrees with a ban on all plastic waste exports, expecting "legitimate exports to continue", and has committed to banning exports of plastic waste to non-OECD countries.