On 18 December 2018 the government published its Resources and Waste Strategy for England. This strategy sets out how the government plans to double resource productivity and eliminate avoidable waste of all kinds (including plastic waste) by 2050. The strategy combines actions that will be taken now in line with the government’s 25 Year Environment Plan.
On 18 February 2019 the government launched consultations on four key measures in the strategy that ran for 12 weeks:
- Reforming the UK packaging producer responsibility system – extended producer responsibility (EPR).
- Introducing a deposit returns scheme (DRS) for cans and bottles.
- A consistent set of materials collected across England from households for recycling.
- A ‘plastics tax’ on packaging containing less than 30 per cent recycled plastic.
In May 2019, the Surrey Environment Partnership (SEP) submitted a joint response to these consultations and invited DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs) to engage with the SEP on our areas of experience. In addition to the responses submitted for the SEP, individual authorities were encouraged to also submit localised responses, based on the SEP formulated response as a template. As well as adding weight to the points raised by increasing responses, the SEP submission included some split reposes to show differing opinions across the partnership, individual responses allowed for these to the localised.
On 23 July 2019 the government published summaries of the responses received and narrative around its direction of travel.
Below is an overview of each consultation in terms of key proposals and themes, the feedback received, an overview of how SEP responded, the government’s response and next steps. To skip to each consultation, click on the links below:
- Reforming the UK packaging producer responsibility system – EPR
- Introducing a DRS scheme for cans and bottles
- Consistency in recycling collections in England
- Plastic packaging tax
Reforming the UK packaging producer responsibility system – EPR
Key proposals and themes in the consultation
- Producers of packaging cover the full net cost (taking account of revenue from the sale of recyclable materials) of managing their packaging at end-of-life. Government intends to adopt full net cost recovery within EPR from producers (adopting ‘polluter pays’ principle).
- Incentives to encourage producers to design and use packaging that can be recycled.
- The businesses that would be obligated under a packaging EPR system.
- Producer funding is used to pay local authorities for the collection and management of household packaging waste and to support the collection for recycling of household-like packaging arising in the commercial waste stream.
- Mandatory labelling on all packaging to indicate if it is recyclable or not.
- New packaging waste recycling targets for 2025 and 2030 (this is broken down by packaging material, but the proposed total packaging recycling targets are 66% by 2025 and 70% by 2030), and interim business recycling targets for 2021 and 2022 (this is broken down by packaging material, but the recycling targets are 76.1% for 2021 and 76.8% for 2022).
- Alternative models for the organisation and governance of a future packaging EPR system. Four alternative models were proposed:
- Model 1: Enhanced ‘near-to-business as usual’ – compliance schemes – Schemes would levy ‘modulated fees’ on members based on the type and quantity of packaging each handles. The payments which a scheme makes to a local authority would cover the cost of collecting and managing packaging waste and meeting any required collection standard.
- Model 2: Single-not-for-profit producer scheme – Delivery of all aspects of the packaging EPR scheme would be the responsibility of a single organisation. The modulated fee rates would be proposed by the organisation to achieve full net cost recovery and would be agreed with government.
- Model 3: Separate schemes for household/household-like and commercial industrial packaging – In this model, separate arrangements would be in place for household and household-like packaging, and commercial industrial packaging waste. Arrangements for commercial and industrial packaging would be managed by compliance schemes. The requirements for household packaging would be managed by a single management organisation.
- Model 4: Government managed scheme – For all recyclable packaging producers to pay a deposit fee. This would be payable per tonne and would vary by material. For all non-recyclable packaging they would pay a fee, set high enough to create an incentive to use recyclable packaging
- Strengthening compliance monitoring and enforcement including for exports.
Key points from the SEP’s response to the consultation
- The SEP response supported the aims of reforming the UK packaging producer responsibility system and saw it as a key measure to ensure that producers take a more ‘systems approach’ to the packaging they produce to ensure that it is recycled. In particular the SEP hoped that EPR will encourage producers to engage in meaningful dialogue to ensure that the recycling of packaging can be increased.
- The SEP were pleased to see that the EPR consultation recognised the costs associated with waste collection and treatment and support the principle around ‘full net cost’. The response also urged DEFRA to ensure that ‘full net cost’ includes the costs of collecting packaging in the residual waste stream as well as the cost of its treatment.
- In terms of the organisation and governance models, the SEP preferred the proposed Model 4 – ‘Deposit-based government managed scheme’; with a strong feeling that Government should be as close as possible to the governance, to ensure that the scheme is operated in the spirit of the guidance and that fairness is observed.
Number of responses to this consultation
679 separate responses (plus 34 campaign responses). 33% of the responses were from local government, by far the highest.
Summary of feedback
Overall, respondents were positive of the intent to improve the current system and for packaging EPR to form part of a coherent system that is understandable and fair to businesses and consumers.
Government response and next steps
The government will introduce a new EPR system for packaging in 2023 via the Environmental Bill. The government will consider the responses and evidence submitted in more detail and undertake further analysis to inform more detailed proposals on the EPR scheme for packaging and related secondary legislation. This work will be taken forward over the remainder of 2019 and the government anticipate bringing their final proposals forward for consultation in 2020. Subject to the outcome of the second, more detailed consultation, the Government will implement the necessary changes as soon as practical thereafter.
Feedback to the key proposals and themes in this consultation
Full net cost recovery
More than half of the respondents (56%) agreed to the proposed definition of full net cost recovery. However more than a quarter of respondents (28%) mainly from organisations in the supply chain argued that definition went beyond the ‘polluter pays’ principle. One of the key concerns raised was the inclusion of clean-up costs of littered and fly tipped packaging items, and the “open ended” commitment that could result from their inclusion.
Almost three-quarters of respondents (74%) agreed with the proposal for producers to fund the costs of collecting and managing household and household-like packaging waste. Three-fifths of respondents (60%) agreed that packaging for commercial/industrial applications should be out of scope for full net cost recovery.
Going forward, given the broad support for the definition proposed and the packaging waste that it applies to, the government are minded to progress with this definition, but will undertake further work to determine the scale and associated costs of managing packaging waste that is generated ‘on-the-go’ and is littered. They will also consider further the available evidence on any packaging waste that is fly tipped.
Incentives to encourage more sustainable packaging
There was strong support for incentivising better packaging design through EPR, but mixed views on the best mechanism to achieve this; modulated fees (48% of respondents), or a deposit and fee system (17%). The government has commissioned a research project to consider both approaches in more detail. The scope of work includes how fees could be set to incentivise the design of more recyclable packaging and to reduce unnecessary and difficult to recycle packaging as well as ensuring the costs of managing packaging once it becomes waste are recovered.
Point of compliance and obligated businesses
Almost three-fifths of respondents (59%) supported a move to a single point of compliance approach. However, the majority of product manufacturers/pack fillers and retailers who stated a preference indicated a preference for shared responsibility. The government will carry out further research to improve their understanding of the number of businesses that would be obligated if the point of compliance and/or the de-minimis was to change.
Producer funding used to support collections
The majority of respondents agreed that payments to local authorities for collecting and managing household packaging waste should be based on provision of collection services that meet any minimum requirements (by nation) and the collection of a common set of packaging materials. Further work will be taken forward to consider how funding will be allocated to local authorities. Work is currently underway to assess the implications for UK reprocessing capacity and secondary materials markets of increased quantities of packaging materials available for recycling.
More than half of respondents (55%) agreed that provision for the take back of single-use disposable cups for recycling should continue to be developed on a voluntary basis by business prior to a government decision on whether disposable cups are to be included under an EPR scheme or possible DRS.
Mandatory labelling of packaging
Respondents showed very strong support for using producer fees for communications campaigns at both a national (90%) and local level (88%). The Government will take this forward subject to further analysis and legal considerations.
Packaging waste recycling targets for 2025 and 2030
There was no clear view on future packaging recycling targets. The government will undertake further analysis on future packaging recycling targets including the feasibility of achieving higher levels of recycling by 2030, as well as look into setting a separate recycling target for fibre-based composite packaging items (e.g. food and drink containers and disposable cups).
Alternative models for the organisation and governance of a future packaging EPR system
More than three-fifths of respondents (62%) indicated support for a single management organisation (Model 2) being established on a not-for-profit basis. In the competitive compliance scheme model (Model 1) more than three quarters of respondents (78%) agreed that a Packaging Advisory Board or similar would be required to oversee the functioning of the EPR system and the compliance schemes.
The Government will now consider the further two governance approaches – a competitive compliance scheme approach and a single scheme administrator approach, whilst looking at hybrid approach suggested by stakeholders.
Strengthening compliance monitoring and enforcement including for exports
Almost four-fifths of respondents (79%) supported the measures set out in the consultation document (a range of measures on strengthened accreditation, reporting and monitoring arrangements). In particular, many respondents highlighted the importance of ensuring that the costs of enforcement adequately reflected the regulatory effort involved.
The government will undertake further work with the Regulators and stakeholders to consider, develop and present effective measures to strengthen compliance monitoring and enforcement that are appropriate to the proposed governance approach.
Introducing a DRS scheme for cans and bottles
Key proposals and themes in this consultation
- Basic principles for a DRS.
- Scope of DRS, including options for the scheme delivery model: o an all-in and on-the-go that would include containers smaller than 750mls and drinks sold in single format. o and the materials and drinks that the scheme will cover.
- Scheme design including definition and roles of producers in the scheme, the role of retailers and provision points, and the role of local authorities.
- Operational management of the scheme, and the proposed establishment of a Deposit Management Organisation (DMO).
- Finance and administration of the scheme, including a focus on set-up, operational costs and deposit level.
- Monitoring and regulation, including compliance and enforcement, tackling fraud and misuse of the scheme.
- Achieving identified outcomes and alternative approaches.
Key points from the SEP’s response to the consultation
- The SEP identified in their response that a DRS would introduce a new collection and disposal route for bottles which would in turn reduce the amount collected at the kerbside. In addition, an increase in recycling and litter bins being raided for the valuable materials (an unwanted side effect of the scheme), was also expected.
- The SEP also highlighted that the requirements for return points could have an impact on a number of local authority services such as; parks, leisure centres, car parks and day centres. This could then potentially impact on the planning authority (depending upon the status of these return points).
- The response from the SEP also raised the concern that a DRS is not a necessary scheme when other proposals were being consulted on, for example EPR, would be more effective at achieving Government’s aims.
Number of responses to this consultation
208,269 responses to the consultation; 1,180 of those were by email, post and citizen space, and 207,089 were via campaigns from Greenpeace, Marine Conservation Society, and 38 Degrees.
Summary of feedback
There is strong support for the introduction of a DRS. Government response and next steps The government is minded to introduce a DRS for drinks containers in England and Wales from 2023. The specific details of a DRS, including the material and drinks to be included in scope, will be developed further and will be presented in a second consultation in early 2020. Following the second consultation, a DRS would be implemented from 2023.The government will take powers to introduce deposit return schemes in the Environment Bill.
The impact on households who currently recycle at home (and might not redeem their deposit) will need to be considered. DEFRA has commissioned a social research project on consumer attitudes towards a DRS, which will be used to develop our Impact Assessment and assess any unintended consequences.
Feedback to the key proposals and themes in this consultation
Basic principles for a DRS
More than four-fifths (84%) of respondents agreed with the principles and cited several reasons why implementing the scheme would have a positive impact. Most commonly, respondents felt that a DRS would incentivise consumers to recycle containers, leading to higher overall recycling rates and an associated reduction in littering and waste production. It was also highlighted that other European countries, particularly Germany and the Scandinavian nations have been successfully operating similar schemes for many years.
However, there were concerns with the introduction of a DRS alongside kerbside recycling and the potential for consumer confusion and complications. DEFRA has commissioned a social research project on consumer attitudes towards a DRS, which will be used to develop our Impact Assessment and assess any unintended consequences.
As per the consultation document, the DMO would run communications campaigns to aid consumer understanding of the DRS. In addition, on the introduction of a DRS, there would be messaging from the government on the final proposals, including what items would be in scope and how a DRS would work with existing kerbside collections.
Scope of a DRS – materials and drinks that the scheme will cover
The majority of respondents wanted all materials included in a DRS. The large majority of respondents consider that PET bottles (94%), HDPE containers (84%), aluminium (94%), steel cans (90%), and glass (86%) should be included in the DRS.
Across all types of drink (soft drinks, alcoholic, drinks containing milk and plant-based drinks), the large majority of respondents would like to see them included within a DRS. However, the proportion of respondents advocating inclusion of ‘all’ or ‘some’ plant-based drinks and milk, is noticeably lower (73% and 65% respectively, compared with 89% for alcoholic drinks and 84% for soft drinks excluding juices).
The government will use the evidence submitted to this consultation to further consider the scope of a DRS. DEFRA has commissioned a research into how a DRS would affect secondary material markets and will use that to further develop the Impact Assessment.
Scope of a DRS – options for a delivery model
Almost three-fifths (59%) of the 672 respondents to this question preferred the ‘all-in’ option, compared with 13% who preferred an ‘on-the-go’ scheme. Campaign responses from Greenpeace, the Marine Conservation Society and 38 degrees were all in support of an ‘all-in’ option.
The government anticipates that 3L drink containers will be included but the final upper limit will be subject to the outcome of additional and further stakeholder engagement.
The government will develop an Impact Assessment and carry out further analysis regarding the potential interface between a DRS and the current collections regime in Wales in order to ensure the optimum solution maintain the significant progress on recycling.
Scheme design – producer
The government have proposed that all producers of materials and drinks that would fall within the scope of DRS, would be mandated to join the scheme via a ‘producer fee’. DEFRA define ‘producer’ as ‘those who are placing on the market drink beverage products in drinks containers within the scope of DRS. This would include those who import drink beverage products to put into the market in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The majority of the 946 respondents who answered this question, agreed with the definition, although a large minority stated they did not know or did not have enough information to provide a response. However, while 96% of local authorities agreed with the definition, only slightly more than half of individuals (52%) agreed, with more than a quarter (28%) stating they did not know or did not have enough information to provide a meaningful response. All manufacturers and almost all trade organisations (96%) agreed with the definition.
The government will continue with this definition when developing proposals. They will continue to work closely with officials developing the reforms to the EPR system to ensure they align with those proposals.
Scheme design – retailers and provision of return points
Principle 4 of the DRS states that the ‘system should be clear and understandable to consumers and provide convenient means of returning drinks containers and reclaiming deposits. In a well-functioning DRS, it would be easy for consumers to return drinks containers and obtain their refund.
There were mixed views on what provisions should be put in place to help consumers who may have difficulty with returning containers or due to their location. DEFRA will continue to engage with stakeholders to how best to ensure return points are widely accessible.
DEFRA will use evidence submitted to this consultation to further develop their Impact Assessment to avoid any unintended consequences; as they would not want consumers to increase their carbon emissions due to driving their drinks beverage containers to return points where they previously would not have done.
Scheme design – role of local authorities
The main concern among local authorities is the financial impact of implementing a DRS. In particular, the perceived loss of revenue streams from kerbside collections. Many local authority respondents are calling for more financial modelling to be completed and for a greater focus on identifying and mitigating any detrimental or unintended consequences of a DRS. An alternative approach, that local authorities suggested, is to use profits and money collated through unredeemed deposits to cover losses from kerbside collections and to fund other activities.
Management of the scheme and establishment of a DMO
The consultation proposed 3 different types of organisations to manage the implementation and day-to-day running of the scheme, a Deposit management Organisation (DMO). The majority of respondents agreed the government has a role to play in the set-up with of the DMO body.
The majority of respondents also stated that the DMO should be responsible for meeting government targets. The majority of respondents stated that both the DMO and monitoring and regulatory body should be not-for-profit and entirely independent from central government.
The government through further engagement with the industry will continue to develop proposals regarding the management of a DRS, including the details of the DMO’s roles and responsibilities, governance and financing.
Finance and administration of the scheme
The majority of respondents stated that producers should cover the DMO setup costs, with only 7% thinking that others should be responsible. The government will continue to consider how the DMO is financed, including setup and operational costs, using the evidence submitted to the consultation and through further stakeholder engagement.
Monitoring and enforcement
The Government suggest that the Environment Agency (EA) could perform the monitoring and enforcement role. It was felt that EAs involvement would ‘lend weight’ to the importance of the scheme and highlight the interest of government in its operation and success. However, slightly more than a quarter of respondents (26%) either did not know or felt they did not have enough information to provide an opinion.
Achieving identified outcomes and alternative approaches
The majority of respondents were positive about the role of a DRS in achieving the outcomes with mixed views on how effective an alternate approach could be in achieving same objectives.
Consistency in recycling collections in England
Key proposals and themes in this consultation
- Collection of the same core set of dry recyclable materials from households.
- Separate weekly food waste collections from households, including flats.
- Whether local authorities should provide a free garden waste collection service for households with gardens.
- How to achieve greater separation of dry materials in collections, especially paper and glass, to improve the quality of dry recyclables collected from households.
- Whether statutory guidance on minimum service standards for waste and recycling services should be introduced.
- How to develop non-binding performance indicators to support delivering quality through local authorities, recycling and waste management.
- How to support joint working between local authorities on waste, alternatives to weight-based targets and having standardised bin colours for waste and recycling.
- Ways to improve recycling from businesses, public bodies and other organisations.
Key points from the SEP’s response to the consultation
- The SEP was broadly in agreement with creating a consistent service for recycling. The response highlighted that the SEP expected the outcome of the EPR and DRS consultations to shape the future requirements of local authority recycling collections. (The EPR legislation will also be integral to forming demand and end markets for recyclables. Without ensuring robust end destinations for recycling, there would be uncertainty that a core mix could realistically be established for long term collections.)
- In terms of the service method for collection, the SEP referenced evidence from collection systems in Surrey showing that residents prefer using a comingled wheeled bin, but that analysis showed a comingled collection with paper collected separately was the most cost-effective option. In addition, the SEP raised concerns that the health and safety impacts of each collection system had not been considered. Experience in Surrey has shown that the HSE have significant reservations around the use of source segregated collections.
- The SEP response reflected concerns that the proposals on free garden waste wouldn’t deliver the desired recycling increase in Surrey, providing data from Surrey’s 2016 composition analysis. This showed only 4% of residual waste was garden waste; so implementing a free service would only divert garden waste from recycling centres or home composting, leading to a more expensive collection service to run.
Number of responses to this consultation
There was a total of 1,713 responses to the consultation.
Summary of feedback
There were strong views from both individual and stakeholders on the proposals consulted on. Local authority views often varied significantly from others, which government has responded to, allowing for these to be considered.
Government’s response and next steps
The government has analysed the responses received from the consultation and given their steer of direction (details in the section below). Their next steps are to work with stakeholders (including local authorities), to develop more detailed regulations and guidance. More detailed proposals are expected in early 2020, with 2023 being the target year for measures to come into effect.
Feedback to the key proposals and themes in this consultation
Collection of the same core set of dry recyclable materials from households
Almost every stakeholder respondent (95%) agreed that local authorities should be required to collect a core set of recyclables. Responses focused on which materials should be included in this mix were strongly in favour of; glass bottles and containers, paper and cardboard, plastic bottles, pots, tubs and trays and tins and cans.
Following the response, the government is seeking to amend legislation to require all English local authorities to collect at least the following dry materials from 2023:
- Glass bottles and containers – including drinks bottles, condiment bottles, jars.
- Paper and card – including newspaper, cardboard packaging, writing paper.
- Plastic bottles – including clear drinks containers, HDPE (milk containers), detergent, shampoo and cleaning products.
- Plastic pots tubs and trays.
- Steel and aluminium tins and cans.
The consultation also asked about food and drink cartons and plastic film, which haven’t yet been included in the current plans for legislation (as the responses included division). Notably local authority responses were less favourable of including them, with <50% of local authorities responding positively for including cartons and only 16% for plastic film/bags). Government has noted they will be considering how this will interact with the DRS proposals and that the final DMR (dry mixed recycling) mix will include consideration to the EPR scheme. It has also reported that they will legislate for reviewing and amending the core set of materials.
Separate weekly food waste collections from households, including flats
Almost three-quarters of stakeholder respondents (72%) agreed that there should be weekly food collections, but less than two-thirds (61%) said that this collection should be separate from garden waste (individual responses were slightly more positive at 80% and 64% respectively). In addition, 66% of individuals and 56% of stakeholders agreed that free caddy liners should be provided to householders.
The responses show that a significant number of both local authorities and waste management companies highlighted that it would be impractical to provide separate food waste collections in some areas, notably for flats. It was also raised that there should be assurances that there is enough capacity for processing increased tonnages, such as through anaerobic digestion.
Following the consultation, the government has decided to legislate to ensure that every local authority provides householders with a separate food waste collection. Their preference is that this is separate to garden waste collections. Government has also noted that considerations will be given to providing a separate food waste collection for; properties in densely populated areas (especially flats and properties above shops) and very rural areas. They are also looking at the costs and benefits of providing free caddy liners as standard with food waste collections, given the support received for this.
In addition, 57 local authority responses requested that funding should be offered to local authorities that already operate food waste collections. 116 responses from local authorities also said that continuous communications for food waste collections should be funded. Government have said they will take into consideration the comments on funding and communications.
Whether local authorities should provide a free garden waste collection service for households with gardens
Only one in five responding local authorities (20%) agreed that a free garden waste collection service should be provided, raising concerns of the financial implications of doing so. The suggestion was however popular with individual respondents, with four-fifths (80%) of them agreeing with free collections. The government has responded saying that due to stakeholders (namely local authorities) not being supportive, they will be considering the costs and benefits before making a final decision on if the collections should be; free, or a matter for local decision making.
How to achieve greater separation of dry materials in collections, especially paper and glass, to improve the quality of dry recyclables collected from households There was a mixed response from different groups responding to the consultation; seven-tenths (70%) of individual respondents were in favour of separating dry materials where necessary to achieve high quality. Less than half of the stakeholder responses agreed with change to the current systems, notably with less than one-fourth of local authorities (23%) agreeing to the proposals, but other groups including waste management companies saw the proposals as a positive move.
Government has recognised concerns around storage space for multiple recycling containers, the costs of changing systems and the musculoskeletal risks associated with lifting and carrying multi stream boxes; and will be reviewing the evidence supplied regarding these as they develop the proposals. Government are also planning to work with the sector to provide guidance on separate collections to achieve high quality recycling; including consideration to the arisings from EPR and monitoring with local authorities and the Environment Agency.
Whether statutory guidance on minimum service standards for waste and recycling services should be introduced
The responses on minimum service standards were polarising for local authorities with more than half (54%) supporting government guidance and three-tenths (30%) disagreeing with this. In general, individuals and stakeholders were accepting of minimum service standards, with nine-tenths of individuals (90%) and seven-tenths of stakeholders (70%) agreeing. With regards to the content of the statutory guidance; there were notable comments around local flexibility, setting out best practice and encouraging waste collectors to innovate and improve services.
The government had consulted on setting a minimum service standard for residual waste collection of at least every alternate week. More than three quarters of individual respondents (77%) agreed with this, and four-tenths of stakeholders (43%) did, but local authorities showed strong objection. The government is preparing statutory guidance on minimum service standards, working with local authorities and other stakeholders. Further consideration including costs and benefits will be given to a minimum frequency of residual waste collection.
How to develop non-binding performance indicators to support delivering quality through local authorities, recycling and waste management
Three-fifths of both stakeholders (including local authorities) and individuals (60%) supported non-binding performance indicators. There was general support (but only 51% from local authorities) for indicators to be based around yields for material streams/residual waste. Government is planning to work with local authorities on the development of the indicators and trialling them over the next years.
How to support joint working between local authorities on waste, alternatives to weight-based targets and having standardised bin colours for waste and recycling
In general, there was support for greater collaboration and partnership working between authorities. As well as raising barriers for this, suggestions were made of how government could support joint working; including tools and guidance and facilitating space for discussions between local authorities. Government has committed to reviewing the recycling credit scheme whilst forwarding the EPR system and funding arrangements arising from it. They will take forward the next steps with local authorities, WRAP and the Local Government Association (LGA).
In addition, seven-tenths of stakeholders (70%) agreed with the proposal to develop alternatives to weight based metrics. From these 182 mentioned carbon/greenhouse gas emissions should be included in metrics. Government will consider the alternatives whilst developing metrics.
With regards to standardising bin colours only three-tenths of local authorities (30%) responded positively, however individuals showed a strong preference for this. The responses showed that almost a third of stakeholders (31%) thought any changes should be phased in as bins required replacing, and more than a quarter (26%) when contracts were renewed. Suggestions of using stickers or labels instead of changing bin colours were also notable. Government has recognised that there are benefits to having consistent bin colours, and that the cost and practicalities of this are causing concerns for consideration when developing the next steps.
Ways to improve recycling from businesses, public bodies and other organisations
There was strong support for the proposals to increase recycling from businesses and other organisations that produce municipal waste. The most popular approach proposed was separation of dry recycling, food waste and glass; but there were some requests for local flexibility and consistency with household collections. The government also consulted on the separation of food waste for recycling, which also received strong support.
Following the responses, the government will seek to amend legislation so that businesses will be required to separate dry recyclable waste from residual. This is also the case for food waste, with further discussion on how the provision should be applied. Government will also take into consideration reducing costs for smaller businesses and how to support them to recycling more.
Plastic packaging tax
Key proposals and themes in this consultation
- Defining products within the scope of the tax.
- Setting a threshold for recycled plastic content (proposed at 30%).
- The approach to rates.
- The precise point at which the tax is charged and who will be liable to pay.
- How to minimise administrative burdens for the smallest operators and/or low volumes of production or imports.
- The treatment of imports and exports.
- Promoting compliance and preventing opportunities for tax avoidance or evasion.
- How business can demonstrate the recycled content of their products in a robust way without introducing unnecessary administrative burdens.
Key points from the SEP’s response to the consultation
The SEP response highlighted that the proposed measure would provide an economical incentive for manufacturers to not only produce packaging that is easier to recycle, but would also push them to recover this material to use again in their own products. This would result in lower reject rates for sorted recycling and better material values for recovered recycling, as there will be a bigger market for a more consistent range of packaging.
Number of responses to this consultation
The government received 436 written responses to this consultation, including 332 to the standard consultation and 104 to the condensed version (for stakeholders who preferred to provide views on only the high-level principles of the tax).
Summary of feedback
Feedback has been given to HM Treasury on their proposed plastic packaging tax. This has been reviewed with variation in some areas of response.
Government’s response and next steps
Government has responded saying that for all areas of the tax design, it will continue to consider which approaches will best support the objectives of the tax, are most administratively feasible and do not have a disproportionate impact on business. HM Treasury will also continue to work closely with DEFRA to ensure that the plastic packaging tax complements the reforms in the other areas consulted on (EPR, DRS and consistency in collections). The government will set out the next steps at Budget 2019. HM Treasury will publish a technical consultation on the detail of the tax design later and publish draft legislation for consultation in 2020.
Feedback to the key proposals and themes in this consultation
Defining products within the scope of the tax
The majority of those responding on the subject agreed with the government’s approach of defining plastic (in line with EU regulations). There was a trend in responses for including bio-based, biodegradable and compostable plastic within the definition.
In addition, most responses agreed with the government’s approach of defining packaging in scope consistently with the EPR system. Over half of those responding agreed that components of packaging that can easily be separated, should be treated as individual items of packaging.
The government says it will further consider the definitions for plastic and for packaging, regarding the treatment of bio-based, biodegradable and compostable plastic. Consideration will be given to how composite packaging (e.g. paper coffee cups with a wax lining, which is difficult to recycle) will be treated within the scope of the tax, given the focus on improving environmental outcomes. There will also be thought given to the development of the EPR reforms in the design of the tax.
Setting a threshold for recycled plastic content (proposed at 30%)
Around a third of those responding to the proposal of a 30% recycled content threshold agreed with the proposal.
The government has responded saying it will consider which approach will best support the objectives of the tax while minimising administrative burdens. Following feedback, consideration will be given for products where it would be difficult to increase the level of recycled content, when designing the tax. In addition, HR Treasury acknowledge the need to tackle this as quickly as possible and so will introduce the tax by 2022 (aiming to incentivise quicker and broader action than voluntary initiatives, whilst also giving businesses time to adapt).
The approach to rates
There was agreement by two thirds of those responding to the government’s proposal of setting a flat rate per tonne of a plastic packaging product. Following the response, the government will continue to consider which approach will best support the objectives of the tax and is most administratively feasible.
The precise point at which the tax is charged and who will be liable to pay Most respondents replying to the proposal for the tax to apply at the point of production (given this is where the recycled content is added) agreed with this. There was also support for extending joint and several liability to other businesses in the supply chain for UK production and for imports. Responses noted this would reduce tax evasion and aligns with the approach used for other taxes.
The government says it will continue to consider the approach to take and acknowledges the support for including filled imports in scope of the tax and will consider the arguments for inclusion. In addition, government recognises support for extending joint and several liability to other businesses in the supply chain; in a way which does not result in disproportionate administrative impact.
How to minimise administrative burdens for the smallest operators and/or low volumes of production or imports
There was a varied response received for the proposal of excluding small operators. The main concern raised was that the administrative and financial burden would out way the environmental benefits. Others thought all operators should be included to maximise the impact.
In response the government notes the mixed views, the suggestion that any de minimis should be as low as possible and that the government should consider alignment with the 21 reforms to the Packaging Producer Responsibility regulations. The government continues to consider its approach.
The treatment of imports and exports
There were split responses on whether exports should receive a tax credit (to maintain competitiveness in global markets). The government has responded recognising that plastic packaging waste is a global problem and by setting an example through introducing a world-leading new tax. Government also acknowledge it is important to ensure the tax does not negatively affect the competitiveness of UK businesses that export plastic packaging, especially where doing this could be detrimental to the environment.
Promoting compliance and preventing opportunities for tax avoidance or evasion
Many responses noted similar compliance powers should be used to those already in place (to administer other taxes and duties). In opposition views were raised that there would be challenges ensuring the level of recycled content.
In response the government notes general support for the proposals on ensuring compliance and will continue to develop these further (considering the suggestions made). The government recognises the importance of assuring the levels of recycled content in a consistent way and are seeking to ensure robust requirements are set.
How business can demonstrate the recycled content of their products in a robust way without introducing unnecessary administrative burdens.
Government proposed registration and reporting on a ‘digital by default’ basis. This would be similar to processes in place for other taxes. There was a split response to this with half of respondents agreeing; with supporting comments that consistency with other tax processes was helpful. It has been noted that some responded saying the process should be in line with the EPR system which has an annual reporting period. In addition, feedback including the views that the costs of developing the system and ongoing data gathering would be substantial, and costs could be reduced if this was in line with the EPR system. The government has said it will continue developing the proposals considering the feedback and recognising the need to minimised costs (for registering and reporting) where possible, and that taxpayers will need sufficient time to prepare for the tax introduction.