Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007

I am pleased to speak on these regulations. I am afraid that I only have one speech on this subject; it is a little long, but I promise to be shorter on the next subject. The regulations make changes to the producer-responsibility obligations, which are welcome. I particularly welcome the reduction of bureaucracy in the sense that a large number of people will no longer have to file a plan. I can speak to the regulations with some knowledge. Indeed, I have to declare an interest; my family bulb-growing, packing and distribution business is a registered producer and we are members of Valpak, an agency set up for the purposes of these regulations. Speaking from that experience, I would say that generally the system works well. However, it is complex, and without the investment that we have made in creating a whole section of our IT programme to deal with it, we would find it almost impossible to monitor. Even as a medium-sized business, we have 2,500 product items, all with their own packaging formulations, with a very large number of many-to-many situations. These all require monitoring through the purchasing, packing and distribution process. We also need to pass on information to some of our customers to enable them to file their own obligations. Even with the support of IT, two senior managers spent two weeks collating the data for filing with Valpak. When we talk about reducing the administrative burden and reducing bureaucracy, the regulations are a classic illustration of what it means to be in business today. The measure is well intentioned, properly directed and effective, but it is still one of those things that government send to test us. It is therefore important to bear in mind the impact of these regulations on business life. It is equally important that they are implemented with fairness and sensitivity. On the first point, I am not sure that all who might be under an obligation are being properly investigated and audited. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how satisfied he is on that point. He might also tell us how many man days it takes to do one audit, and how many man days of the Environment Agency’s officials are dedicated to that work. We note the inclusion of producers registered overseas who will now come within the scope of the regulations in respect of their UK operations. At the same time, I wonder how strong a grip the Government have on the internet sale of waste to third countries, particularly plastic waste. What checks have we to ensure that waste exported to overseas sites conform with the EU directive on those sites? Who does the checking? I shall continue with some personal observations. We can recycle cardboard and paper quite easily, even though the plant is 20 miles away. We have both baling and shredding facilities, but plastic, particularly if it is dirty, is very difficult to dispose of as no one wants it. We also find some matters of definition difficult. The plant-pot issue is resolved, but we have curious anomalies in display stands, which are excluded, but which are included if the bin, crate or box is used to transport goods, as well as display them. As I said, the system in the main achieves its objectives. We are given incentives to reduce waste, to recycle what we can and to think carefully about packaging decisions. We accept that the changes that the regulations bring about are designed to make the system work better. We welcome the consultation with the advisory committee on packaging throughout the process. I turn briefly to the text of the regulations as there are a few anomalies, which I hope the Minister can explain. The sum of ““£5,000,000”” is mentioned at the bottom of page 7. We all know that there is a de minimis of £2 million on this programme. Why is that not included in the regulations at that point? It is referred to later, on page 31, where the threshold is described, but I am surprised that the £2 million is not included in the opening general comments of the regulations. On page 17, one finds the same situation under Regulation 16(4)(a) where, again, there is no mention of the £2 million. Sub-paragraph (b) says, "““and, in addition to the fee payable under sub-paragraph (a) or (b)””," but I cannot understand the relevance of ““or”” in that statement, because sub-paragraph (a) is totally different from what this power seems to be looking at. I also find unusual the absence in the regulation, as opposed to the covering literature, of any reference to electronic inputting. There are references to forms as approved by the Secretary of State, so there are words about the forms. But I am surprised that, as far as I can see, the regulation does not refer specifically to electronic inputting, which obviously will be a great advantage. It may help in the prevention of fraud if PRNs, for example, are issued electronically. I welcome the proposal, but I am not sure where it exists in the regulations. I might have misread Regulation 36, entitled ““Collation and provision of information””, but paragraph (1) states: "““The appropriate Agency shall collate and place in the common database every report provided to it under paragraph 1(n) of Schedule 5””." As I read it, every report that is filed with the agency will be placed in a common database. However, paragraph (3) states: "““The Environment Agency shall … in the year following the year in which the reports are due to be provided under paragraph 1(n) … provide the Secretary of State with a copy of every report collated under paragraph (1) above””." I wonder whether that means every report or whether it means the collation of the individual reports that have been submitted. Is it a summary or is it every report? If it is every report, my only comment is that if this information is in the public domain, we should be aware that it can be confidential; it is certainly commercially sensitive for those who are filing their reports. I would be grateful for the Minister’s observations on those points. A table showing the targets for recycling is on page 34. The Minister has rightly drawn the attention of the Grand Committee to the success that we have had since 1997 in increasing the rates of recycling, and the role that business and industry has played. However, I am disappointed that the new targets leading up to 2010 are relatively modest. I am sure that the Government do not seek to be modest in their intentions, but I am disappointed that the figures are very low in terms of percentages. Take, for example, aluminium, which is a high-value product. We are recycling only 31 per cent of aluminium cans in this country, which is, I think, the lowest figure in Europe. Why are we expecting, even with effort and focus, to increase that by a modest 2.5 per cent from this year to 2010?