Source · Select Committees · Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Third Report - The price of plastic: ending the toll of plastic waste
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
HC 22
Published 7 November 2022
Recommendations
2
Rejected
Para 24
We recommend the 2042 target for the elimination of plastic waste should be reaffirmed by...
Recommendation
We recommend the 2042 target for the elimination of plastic waste should be reaffirmed by the new Government but, crucially, without the qualifier “avoidable”. The goal would be clearly defined as ensuring that all plastic waste is recycled, reused or …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government disagrees with dropping the "avoidable" qualifier because they believe a small proportion of waste cannot be kept in circulation, and substituting plastic for other materials may lead to worse environmental outcomes. They state the overall target should be viewed alongside other targets with earlier deadlines.
8
Rejected
Para 40
We recommend that the Government develops a clear exit strategy for any dual running of...
Recommendation
We recommend that the Government develops a clear exit strategy for any dual running of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) alongside a legacy Packaging Waste Recovery Note system. This exit strategy should be published no more than a year after EPR …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government disagrees with publishing an exit strategy for dual running of EPR and the PRN system one year after EPR implementation, stating they want to ensure the right measures are in place at the right time and avoid complicating pEPR's delivery.
9
Rejected
We understand the logic behind some of the changes the previous Government made to its...
Recommendation
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government disagrees and will maintain the existing de-minimis threshold, while introducing a new reporting obligation on smaller producers and reviewing the de minimis threshold in 2026/27.
14
Rejected
Para 71
We welcome the introduction of the Plastic Packaging Tax (PPT) which is expected to increase...
Recommendation
We welcome the introduction of the Plastic Packaging Tax (PPT) which is expected to increase demand for recycling plastic material and re-encourage investment in the recycling sector as it grows to meet this demand. We call upon the new Government …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government will maintain and develop this fiscal measure. However, the government disagrees with hypothecating fees towards research, stating producer fees will pay for packaging waste collection and management.
19
Rejected
We also recommend that, by the end of 2023, the new Government conduct a feasibility...
Recommendation
We also recommend that, by the end of 2023, the new Government conduct a feasibility study of other mechanisms to encourage investment, including measures to rationalise the plastics market and introduce price-stabilising mechanisms for plastic recyclate, similar to those used …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government disagrees with conducting a feasibility study of other mechanisms to encourage investment, stating that existing policies will encourage greater levels of recycling and create the market conditions to support continued investment in domestic recycling capacity.
22
Rejected
The Government need to publish clear, evidence-based criteria for how Extended Producer Responsibility fees and...
Recommendation
The Government need to publish clear, evidence-based criteria for how Extended Producer Responsibility fees and the Plastic Packaging Tax will apply to new technologies, including compostable plastics and chemical recycling. We recommend the hypothecation of income raised from fees on …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government will obligate producers to collate and report their packaging data for 2023. However, the government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation to hypothecate fees towards research, stating producer fees will pay for packaging waste collection and management.
Conclusions (1)
7
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 39
We agree that it is best to continue the Packaging Waste Recovery Note (PRN) system in the short term to ensure some continued funding for the reprocessing sector. Government should ensure that any temporary dual-running system, and the added complexity it brings, does not become permanent. We welcome the previous …
Government Response Summary
The government disagrees with publishing an exit strategy for dual running of EPR and the PRN system one year after EPR implementation, stating they want to ensure the right measures are in place at the right time and avoid complicating pEPR's delivery.