The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chair:
Mr
James Gray
†
Benyon,
Richard (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs)
†
Dorries,
Nadine (Mid Bedfordshire)
(Con)
†
George,
Andrew (St Ives)
(LD)
†
Goldsmith,
Zac (Richmond Park)
(Con)
†
Goodwill,
Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
Gummer,
Ben (Ipswich) (Con)
†
Halfon,
Robert (Harlow)
(Con)
†
Hamilton,
Fabian (Leeds North East)
(Lab)
†
Hinds,
Damian (East Hampshire)
(Con)
†
Kawczynski,
Daniel (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
(Con)
†
Lammy,
Mr David (Tottenham)
(Lab)
Love,
Mr Andrew (Edmonton)
(Lab/Co-op)
Mann,
John (Bassetlaw)
(Lab)
Paisley,
Ian (North Antrim)
(DUP)
†
Pound,
Stephen (Ealing North)
(Lab)
†
Reed,
Mr Jamie (Copeland)
(Lab)
†
Sharma,
Mr Virendra (Ealing, Southall)
(Lab)
†
Wright,
Simon (Norwich South) (LD)
Dr
Sarah Thatcher, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
The following also attended,
pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Gyimah,
Mr Sam (East Surrey) (Con)
Second
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 22
November
2010
[Mr
James Gray
in the
Chair]
Draft
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment)
Regulations
2010
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Richard Benyon):
I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Producer Responsibility
Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations
2010.
It
is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Gray. We are
meeting to debate regulations that amend the Producer Responsibility
Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007 in three ways. First,
they set new recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste for
2011 and 2012. Secondly, as I will explain later, they will improve the
transparency of how the packaging recycling system is funded. Finally,
they make a number of technical changes to improve the clarity of the
regulations and reduce costs to
business.
Packaging
fulfils an important role in protecting food and other goods on their
journey from farms or factories via warehouses and shops, until they
arrive at homes and offices. In 2009, nearly 11 million tonnes of
packaging was placed on the UK market together with the products it
protects. The producer responsibility system for packaging ensures that
a minimum proportion of such packaging is recycled once it has done its
job. It is important to remember that tackling waste is an issue for us
all. That is why the Government are undertaking a review to consider
all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England. The main aim of
the review will be to ensure that, together, we are taking the right
steps towards creating a zero-waste economy, where resources are fully
valued and nothing of value gets thrown
away.
The
EU directive on packaging and packaging waste, which has been in place
for more than 10 years, requires member states to recover a minimum of
60% of all packaging waste, of which 55% must be recycled every year.
The UK achieved those targets in 2008 and 2009, and it is on course to
do so again in 2010 via the producer responsibility system set out in
the producer responsibility regulations. Currently, we only have
recycling targets for packaging producers in the UK until the end of
2010. Therefore, we need to put measures in place to ensure that the UK
continues to meet the EU packaging and recycling targets in future
years, so that we can ensure that packaging waste continues to be
recycled. Without those targets, we can expect costly infraction
proceedings.
We
also need to ensure that those targets are achieved at the lowest
possible cost to businesses in order to support them in this
challenging economic climate. Next year, the Government will set out
their long-term
approach to packaging as part of the waste review. In the meantime, the
Government are proposing to set packaging and recycling targets for
2011 and 2012 only at a level that will ensure the delivery of the EU
targets in the packaging directive, but no more than that.
The
regulations include slight increases in the proportions of steel and
plastic packaging wastes that producers will have to recycle over the
current 2010 levels. That reflects recent changes in the market for
those materials and ensures that the overall EU recycling targets for
such materials continues to be met. The targets are expected to deliver
overall net benefits estimated at between £1.6 million and
£18 million over two years in terms of reduced costs to
business, the carbon savings associated with recycling and the revenue
from the sale of valuable material. Targets for 2013 and beyond will be
considered in the light of the findings of the review on waste policy,
which are due in spring next year, as I have said.
In addition
to the recycling targets for 2011 and 2012, the regulations contain
provisions on the transparency of the funding associated with packaging
waste recovery notes, PRNs, and packaging waste export recovery notes,
PERNs. Those are the evidence notes issued by accredited reprocessors
and exporters to show that recovery and recycling has taken place.
Reprocessors and exporters will now be required to report how they have
spent the PRN revenue against new, more defined categories. The new
categories have been developed in consultation with the industry and
will provide a more accurate picture of how the funding is used to
benefit the packing recycling system as a whole.
The
regulations will also empower the environment agencies to set a common
format for the business plans that reprocessors and exporters seeking
accreditation have to submit. That will make the requirements clearer
for business and save processing time for the agencies.
As I have
mentioned, the regulations also contain a number of minor technical
changes. The majority of those changes aim to clarify definitions, key
dates for data returns and payment deadlines, and to update references
to legislation that has been revised since 2007.
In line with
the Government’s commitment to reduce the burden of regulation
on business, these changes include two deregulatory proposals. The
first is the removal of the requirement for reprocessors and exporters
to have an independent audit, which can cost up to £10,000 for a
large company. The second deregulatory change allows a certain category
of smaller businesses to use a simpler method to calculate their legal
obligation, which will save time and
effort.
Benefits
from these changes mean that, as a whole, the proposed package of
changes will reduce the net administrative burden placed on UK business
by between £285,000 and £371,000 annually.
I believe
that the proposed amendments to the packaging regulations will ensure
that the UK continues to meet its EU obligations while keeping costs to
UK businesses low. They will provide greater transparency for producers
and local authorities regarding producer funding, and they will resolve
a number of technical issues that will reduce the overall
administrative burden on business.
I commend the
regulations to the Committee.
4.36
pm
Mr
Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab):
It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship today, Mr
Gray.
The
Minister will be pleased to learn that I do not intend to delay
proceedings any longer than is necessary. This is the first time that I
have spoken from the Opposition Front Bench in such proceedings.
However, I assure him—as I have done on previous
occasions—that our intention is to support him in his work,
wherever we agree. Environment policy must take account of other policy
areas, but we hope that we can debate ideas and prosecute policies that
have the full support of the House. These issues are too important and
the consequences are too long-term to be considered only on a
Parliament-by-Parliament basis and I believe that they should be above
the banalities of party politics.
The Minister
is absolutely right, of course—packaging plays an important
role. In so far as the regulations seek to provide greater transparency
and clarity to regulation, we in the Labour party are supportive of
them. There is no point in opposition for the sake of it, as I have
mentioned. In principle, we welcome sincere attempts to reduce costs to
businesses affected by any regulation introduced to help further a
social good, which we believe is the intention behind these
regulations.
We
support the greater transparency that these regulations aim to promote
with regard to PRNs and PERNs—at this point, I think that the
Minister can tell that we have shared the same briefing. These are
sensible changes, and I understand that industry is content with them.
Some of the technical changes that tidy up the existing system also
appear to be both minor and acceptable. However, some of the other
technical changes require the Minister to provide further
detail.
With
regard to the removal of the need for an independent audit, will the
Minister tell us whether the industry welcomes this move and whether it
has actively sought this change? Current regulation sets recycling
targets for packaging producers in the UK only until the end of 2010.
Therefore it is inevitable that some measures should be introduced now
to ensure that the UK meets the EU packaging recycling targets for the
future. It is also vital that targets are set at such a level so as to
ensure not only that future minimum targets are met but that the
necessary confidence and certainty is given to business, local
authorities and others with regard to future targets, so that necessary
investments can be made now to make sure that future targets
are met.
Fabian
Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab):
Will my hon. Friend
acknowledge that industry—especially those in the packaging
industry—wants to have targets going 10 years into the future,
because that will help it with the future, as he has just underlined?
Also, will he emphasise that point further in his response to the
Minister, because it seems to me that these targets are not
sufficiently forward-looking?
Mr
Reed:
My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is a point
that I was going to discuss in some detail, and I hope that the
Minister will respond in detail on behalf of the
Government.
With
that point in mind, and with regard to the necessary investments that
need to be made in recycling facilities and the like, will the Minister
tell us why
targets are now being laid down only for 2011 and 2012? Does he have any
concerns with regard to planning for such a short time scale? Does he
have absolute confidence that the essentially flat targets for 2011 and
2012 will not affect adversely our ability nationally—this is
one of the few areas where we can act in concert nationally—to
return to an increased level of recycling in the near and medium
terms?
The Minister
knows that there is disagreement about the way in which the Government
have decided to proceed with certain aspects of the regulations. Our
recycling industry is competitive. It has many active dynamics that
drive performance, price and recycling levels. One of its most
important dynamics is the gradual, predictable annual increase in
recycling targets. The removal of that increase is likely to change
business models and investment practices. Will the Minister give an
assurance that it will not do so? What have been the consequences of
flat, zero-increase recycling targets in this country in the past? The
Minister will be aware that Lord Deben expressed concern about this
matter last week in the other place, where he
said:
“when
one has fundamentally flat targets, the effect on the system is
serious. It is already serious.”—[Official Report,
House of Lords, 17 November 2010; Vol. 722, c.
GC77.]
Will
the Minister give examples of when flat targets in other countries have
allowed them to increase their recycling
rates?
What
assessment has the Minister made of the way in which flat targets will
affect not only the recycling capability, but the revenue obtained from
recycling by local authorities? That is central to our combined
national effort to recycle. The Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs needs an effective interface with the Department for
Communities and Local Government across many policy areas. However, I
understand that that relationship would charitably be described as
fractious. My fear is that it is actually dysfunctional. Why was the
DCLG not consulted alongside other Departments on the
regulations?
Our
concern is that it will take years to recover the ground lost through
the recycling target freeze. Business was overwhelmingly content with
the gradual annual increase, so why is it not being continued? To drive
change, we need to increase targets. Does the Minister believe that we
can become one of the European Union’s best performers and reach
70% recycling rates by 2020 with a recycling target freeze over the
next two
years?
Will
the Minister say how the amendment regulations and their consequences
will fit into the waste strategy review that has been
mentioned?
Mr
David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab):
Is my hon. Friend aware
that there is an increasing gap between the total packaging tonnage and
that declared by registered producers? Does he think it important that
the Department investigates why that has happened and why the gap is
increasing, so that we know where we are in
2015?
Mr
Reed:
I agree with my right hon. Friend and am sure that
the Minister will address that point. If we do not know what is going
on, how on earth can we claim to be able to meet the targets?
I
do not believe that the portents are good. It appears that the strategy
review is considering slowing down or removing targets in the UK,
except where minimum EU requirements must be met. That is not remotely
progressive; it is a damaging disincentive to
investment.
Finally,
the consultation that underpins the amendments overwhelmingly revealed
the desire for recycling targets to be raised gradually. Will the
Minister explain why the weight of opinion and evidence from the
consultation has been
disregarded?
Detailed
answers to my questions may yet persuade Opposition Members to support
the
proposals.
4.44
pm
Andrew
George (St Ives) (LD):
It is a pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship, Mr
Gray.
I
will add a few words to the measured contribution of the hon. Member
for Copeland and the intervention of the hon. Member for Leeds North
East. I think it is worth echoing their concerns. I hope that in
responding, the Minister will address the worries of Lord Deben, who
acknowledged his declarable interest as chairman of Valpak when the
issue was debated in another place. He comes to this issue with the
experience of a former environment Minister and with an intimate
knowledge of the workings of the package recycling industry.
I hope that the Minister at least acknowledges the weight of
his
evidence.
The
primary and most contentious issue is perhaps Treasury driven, and it
is beyond the scope or power of the Minister to take further, but it is
of great concern to the industry. In the regulations, targets are set
for 2011 and 2012 only, and that has a potentially disruptive impact on
future market price and investment, and on the certainty from which the
industry has benefited in recent years. It is worth emphasising that we
all urge the Government to get this right, as the hon. Member for
Copeland has rightly said. It is not an issue for party political point
scoring; we can all seek to provide the industry with the certainty
that it needs and, given how it has operated historically, deserves, if
we are to continue to meet improved recycling targets in this
country.
The
big question is how we can achieve that, what is likely to happen
beyond 2012, and whether the Minister can offer any clearer signals to
the industry. On another issue, the previous Government instigated a
consultation in March this year, and I am absolutely certain that the
Minister, who is extremely diligent on these and many other issues,
will have consulted widely and taken soundings from the industry on the
likely impact of the regulations as currently drafted, and on how the
industry is likely to respond. I am sure that he will have spoken to
Lord Deben and others before the final drafting of the document. The
industry deserves some
reassurance.
I
do not necessarily believe that as a result of the regulations the
bottom will simply fall out of the recycling market as far as plastics,
wood, paper, glass and other things are concerned, but I certainly hope
that the Minister takes on board the impact and the potential
disruption. Many of us who feel that this country should set the
highest possible standards and the highest possible level of
recycling—an objective which I know that the Minister
shares—will be seeking some reassurance from him in his
concluding remarks.
4.49
pm
Nadine
Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con):
I congratulate the
Minister on the removal of the independent audit, which will save
businesses vast sums of money, along with the incentives for smaller
businesses, which will be very much
welcomed.
My
constituency has a 50% recycling rate, and we hope to increase it to
60%. Incentivising recycling is, therefore, incredibly important,
particularly in the face of the wave of incinerator companies and
organisations that have arrived on our shores over the past 12 months.
One of them, Covanta, has proposals to build six incinerators across
the UK. For local authorities and activists to fight off such planning
applications—
The
Chair:
Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady will focus on the
statutory
instrument.
Nadine
Dorries:
I am doing that, Mr Gray. Recycling is a way of
counteracting planning applications and the advancement of
incineration. Incentivising companies and authorities to recycle is a
huge concern. The flat-rate zero increase targets set for 2010, 2011
and 2012 are worrying from that perspective. Will the Minister, given
that there is a provision within these regulations to go to 2013,
return in a year or so—or even in six months—on the basis
of further information and consider revising the time frame within
which the flat-rate zero increase targets are set, and perhaps bring
them forward to 2011? These incineration companies are here now, and we
need to have the arguments on recycling to counteract
them.
Several
hon. Members
rose
—
The
Chair:
Order. I apologise, Mr Hamilton. If you had caught
my eye, I would have called you
earlier.
4.51
pm
Mr
Hamilton:
Thank you, Mr Gray. I will not detain the
Committee for long. We all agree that the environment—stopping
further carbon emissions and climate change—is one of the most
important policy areas for all political parties in Parliament, for our
nation and for the whole of Europe. We do not want to see party
political division on the regulations. We want to agree and we want to
ensure that we have the best possible targets for packaging recycling.
That is something that the industry wants, that the industry can plan
for and that we can achieve as a nation as our contribution towards
preventing climate
change.
Does
the Minister believe that the targets, which are being set under these
regulations and which we have to set, because the current targets
expired this year, will achieve the required amount of recycling, as
obligated under the EU packaging directive, by 2015? Is he concerned
that the Treasury’s input towards future targets, and the
presumable need for those targets to be looked at in a future Budget,
will delay further target setting by at least one year? Can he reassure
the Committee that that will not happen?
Finally, as I
am sure that he and other hon. Members acknowledge, the previous
Government set ambitious targets and doubled the amount of recycling of
packaging waste materials from 30% to 60% this year. That was done by
setting ambitious targets, not by setting flat
rates. Will he assure the Committee that, in the future—after
these targets have been agreed or not by the Committee—there
will be more ambitious target setting, which is what the packaging
industry is in favour
of?
4.52
pm
Zac
Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con):
Thank you, Mr Gray. I
enthusiastically welcome the Minister’s commitment that the main
aim of the Government’s waste review is to ensure that we take
the appropriate steps towards creating a zero-waste economy, where, to
quote him,
“resources are
fully valued and nothing of value gets thrown
away.”
I
also welcome the Minister’s commitment to an increase in
landfill tax to £80 a time by 2015. It is certainly one of the
most effective, if not the only effective, examples of green taxation
that I can think of in this country, because it has had an impact in
changing
behaviour.
I
am, however, concerned about these regulations. Last year, nearly 11
million tonnes of packaging were placed on the UK market. By law, we
are required to recover a minimum of 60% of that, with 55% being
recycled. We achieved that in 2008, 2009 and again this year. However,
the regulations are now out for renewal and given the success so far,
which no one doubts, it seems bizarre that we would want to freeze the
targets. One of the reasons why local authorities have been
incentivised to collect and recycle waste is that they know that they
will see a return on their investment. If we freeze the recycling
targets for packaging until a further review in two years, it is
inconceivable that there will not be some repercussions. Lord Deben has
already been quoted twice today, but I will do it a third time, from
when he was debating the issue in the other
place:
“Those
who provide recycling facilities know that if they invest in them on
the basis of this year's demand, by the next year there will be
sufficient increase for that investment to have been worth
while.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17
November 2010; Vol. 722, c.
GC76.]
He went
on to say that because of expectations that the Government might freeze
the targets, the price of glass has already fallen—I think that
he used the term “crashed”. I welcome the
Government’s keenness to avoid overburdening small and
medium-sized enterprises with red tape. In this case, however, the
regulations not only work, but they have been positively welcomed by
virtually all the main operators in this field, from Tesco to
Sainsbury’s, all of which want the current system to be
maintained. Smaller firms, as has already been said, are exempt. In
addition, whereas last year it cost British businesses roughly
£180 million to meet the obligations, I have been told that it
cost German businesses about £1.8 billion, so clearly our
approach works.
I would find
it difficult to support the measure without a clear undertaking by the
Minister, that if the Government’s assumptions are wrong, they
will revisit the policy not in two years, but one. If that commitment
is made, I think the measure will be broadly acceptable to most
people.
4.55
pm
Richard
Benyon:
I am grateful to hon. Members for their questions
and contributions. I will start by doing something that I should have
done earlier, which is to
welcome the hon. Member for Copeland to his place. I look
forward to working with him. As he rightly said, there are a great many
issues on which we can agree, and I look forward to using his
constructive approach in the months
ahead.
The
hon. Gentleman offered some supportive words about the regulations,
which were measured across the Committee. A lot of references were made
to my noble Friend Lord Deben, and rightly so. It could be argued that
he was the person who thought up the scheme in the first place, and he
feels a paternal sense of propriety towards it, which I entirely
understand. I had a conversation with him this morning, as he was in
DEFRA—he sits on an advisory panel on our natural environment
White Paper—and I had a useful discussion with him. I hope to be
able to respond to some of the points that people have put, and indeed
those that my noble Friend put when the matter was discussed in another
place.
As
the hon. Member for Copeland has hinted, the measure is an example of a
great success story. I pay tribute to previous Governments of all hues
for their commitment to it, and for the way in which it has been
developed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has said, the
implementation has been a great success, in terms of both the amount of
recyclates that have been encouraged and accessed and the minimum
impact on business. He has rightly pointed out—the figures vary,
whether it is €1 billion or €1.8 billion—the cost
to Germany, as against £80 million here. Either way, there has
been an enormous difference in how the scheme was
implemented.
The
hon. Member for Copeland asked whether there would be an audit for
businesses. The answer is yes. Regarding the question whether
businesses and local government have been consulted, the answer is also
yes and very much so. Local government was consulted at an early stage,
and DEFRA has not approached the matter with a silo
mentality.
The
big question that many hon. Members raised is whether we are right to
proceed with a flat approach to the target. For a start, it is not a
flat approach. We are not asking for massive increases, but there will
none the less be increases in plastics. Also in steel, we are seeing a
marginal increase. The most important point is that the matter has to
be seen in the context of our waste review. That is not a cop-out; it
is a fundamental part of the matter. No one can look at recyclates,
businesses’ contribution to recycling, the whole question of
packaging or any other part of the waste debate on its own; things have
to be seen in the context of the whole. As my hon. Friend the Member
for Richmond Park, who has great knowledge on such matters, has pointed
out, the Government are extremely ambitious to move towards a
zero-waste society, not just because we have to—to comply with
European Union directives on landfills and other matters—but
because we want to. We are extremely ambitious to achieve
that.
My hon.
Friend also asked about local authorities’ income and how that
will be affected. Glass was mentioned, so let us use that as an
example. The price for glass recyclates has dropped dramatically in
recent years. I question whether that has anything to do
with the process; it is just the way in which the system operates. In
this country, the value is in clear glass. Local authorities
often tend to mix those two products together, but if they were to
separate them, they might get a better price.
The
point about income is that the vast majority of local authorities are
on fixed-price contracts, so the impact of the measure will be
considerably less on them. No doubt, there will be some
impact—that is always the case. Undoubtedly, the success of the
scheme mirrors the high volatility in the value of recyclates. We
cannot escape from that—we cannot flatten that graph—and
it is something that we must live with.
I assure my
hon. Friend that the waste review is not a short-term prospect. That
assurance relates to some of the queries that the hon. Member for Leeds
North East raised. The waste review aims to have a view for a good
decade—possibly more—and allow business, local
authorities and manufacturers a clear view of the Government’s
intentions, and it will provide a road map for that period.
The hon.
Member for St Ives mentioned Lord Deben’s comments on the
matter, which I take seriously. Lord Deben will be involved in the
waste review as a consultant—he has great experience in the
subject—as will a great many other people. I assure him, as I
have assured Committee, that we take an ambitious view on the
matter.
I understand
the points that were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Mid
Bedfordshire and for Richmond Park. Are the Government certain about
the measure’s effects and the predictions that they are making?
Of course not, because the market is uncertain. Are we a repository for
total wisdom on the matter? No, and we would not be so arrogant to say
that we are coming before Committee with predictions and statistics
that are set in stone. If, in a year’s time, I must come before
Committee and say that the market has changed or that different factors
must now be taken into account that we did not consider, I will do
so—and I will crave the Committee’s indulgence at that
time. I hope, however, that hon. Members understand our commitment.
I hope that they understand that the measure—and
their concerns about it—must be regarded in the context of,
perhaps, the largest review of waste policy that any Government have
undertaken.
I understand
the constituency concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid
Bedfordshire, which relate to local popular opinion about the effect of
incineration in that area. I also understand how she cleverly linked
that with the statutory instrument. I assure her, however, that
although we want to achieve what we have to, we also want the maximum
effect while limiting the impact on business. That means that we can
pitch our policies higher up the waste hierarchy—we are
preventing the use of materials; we are reusing them; and we are
recycling them before they have to go to the kind of operations that
are causing her and her constituents such concern.
I have tried
to address the majority of the points that have been made. If hon.
Members want further clarification, I am happy to give them written
assurances. I also thank them for raising their queries
today.
The
regulations will allow the UK to meet its EU obligations while
minimising the cost to business. On the 2012 targets, the regulations
provide the opportunity
to consider the long-term approach to packaging in the light of findings
from the review of waste policy. The regulations will provide more
transparency for producers and local authorities on funding, and they
will provide greater clarity while removing unnecessary burdens from
business.
Mr
Reed:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way,
particularly as he is so near to the end of his
summation.
We
have not dealt sufficiently with the effect that the regulations will
have on behavioural change. It has been difficult to get people
interested in and actively recycling. The effects that the changes will
have on local authorities, which will be more significant than has been
mentioned today, will affect people’s relationship with
recycling facilities in their communities and will disincentivise them
to change their behaviour sufficiently. I am concerned about that. Is
the Minister
concerned?
Richard
Benyon:
I apologise if I did not answer all the hon.
Gentleman’s questions. I understand where he is coming from, but
the regulation refers to business—big business—because
any business with a turnover of less than £2 million or any
business that is producing less than 50 tonnes of recyclable material
is excluded from the
regulations.
I
shall deal with the hon. Gentleman’s question head-on, because
it is important. Throughout the waste review and in the
Government’s negotiations with people of all interests relating
to it, particularly local government, we have had to consider how we
incentivise people to recycle. He will find in his constituency, as I
will find in mine, that recycling is a much more important issue for
people. We can massively increase what we recycle by making it as easy
as possible for people to do so. We must consider not only the impact
that recycling has on the environment as a whole, but on
people’s everyday lives. I assure the hon. Gentleman that
although that may not be relevant to this statutory instrument, I will
work with him to ensure that we consider how people behave, how we can
influence their behaviour and how we can use the good will that is out
there to achieve what we all want to achieve in this
regard.
Andrew
George:
The Minister acknowledged earlier that DEFRA does
not necessarily have a monopoly on all wisdom and does not have a
crystal ball that can predict how the world will respond to the
regulations, as proposed, particularly given the nature of the
relatively short-term targets set by this measure. The hon. Member for
Richmond Park rightly asked, in the light of that, what the Minister
and the Department will do if the next six months or year prove to be
less successful than the Department anticipates. Does the Minister
accept the suggestion, made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, that
this matter should be reviewed earlier if such circumstances
arise?
Richard
Benyon:
I can do no more than refer the hon. Gentleman to
the words of my noble Friend Lord Henley, who was asked the same
question when this matter was debated in the other place. We would
consider returning to the House if we found that the circumstances had
changed to any great degree or if we were failing to achieve what we
set out to achieve. I urge Committee
members to consider the matter in the context of the waste review and
understand that we are trying to be ambitious. I assure hon. Members
that we will respond if our assumptions are
challenged.
I
am conscious that I did not answer precisely the question asked by the
right hon. Member for Tottenham about the gap between the tonnage
reported by businesses and estimates of packaging going on to the
market. That matter is constantly under debate in the Advisory
Committee on Packaging, which is investigating that gap or alleged
disparity, and trying to create the sort of certainty that we will be
considering closely in the review in the months ahead. The review will
be published in the spring.
With those
points, I shall conclude my remarks. I am grateful to hon. Members for
their contributions, and I hope that they will give the statutory
instrument the
go-ahead.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Draft Producer Responsibility
Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations
2010.
5.10
pm
Committee
rose.