Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2005

I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments. They are both obviously experts in this field. I was very impressed by the noble Lord’s exact knowledge of these not-short regulations. He asked about the date on which they would come into force, which, as he said, would be the day after these regulations are made. That will be the day after the conclusion of debates in both Houses. If these regulations are fortunate enough to be agreed today, that will mean, tomorrow. The noble Lord asked about problems at the retail end. Retailers have the largest share of obligation under the regulations—some 48 per cent—and have played a full part in increasing packaging waste recovery and recycling so far, which is up by some 25 percentage points since 1998. There will be higher costs—an extra £19 million spread over the next three years—compared with the costs that were estimated in 2003. It has been necessary to amend the targets to ensure that we will achieve the next directive targets. In the great scheme of things, £19 million is not a huge extra cost, but it is an extra cost. The noble Baroness referred to reducing packaging. Obligations based on packaging are handled by the business. Therefore, if it reduces the amount of packaging it handles, the costs of compliance will be lower. So if it gets less packaging in, its costs will be less, which is, no doubt, part of the virtuous cycle that the noble Baroness referred to. She also talked about potato and maize starches. She is right that they can be used to make packaging, but biodegradable is really beneficial only if it is sent for biodegrading itself, otherwise, it goes straight into household waste. The noble Baroness also referred to the audit trail. Importantly, the Environment Agency monitors and enforces these regulations, so we are comfortable that there is a proper audit trail for these matters. On Question, Motion agreed to.