Before I address the individual amendments in the group, I reiterate that the Government absolutely share the concerns associated with the proliferation of plastics. I assure Members across the House that measures in the Bill will vastly improve the tools that we have at our disposal to tackle plastics pollution and the damage that they cause.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for Amendment 139. Noble Lords have spoken extensively and unanimously about the need to combat plastics and the damage that they do to the environment. I know that litter picks on the beaches near Culross find a significant amount of single-use plastic, as they do on all beaches, sadly, even those around the Pitcairn Islands, which are the most remote on the planet.
The Bill provides a robust approach to help to move towards a more circular economy in all sectors. Items that are not captured by Clause 54 could be captured by other measures, such as EPR or resource efficiency. In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, I say that I stand by my earlier comments about resource use more broadly and the need to reduce waste and our impact on the planet generally. I do not think that we disagree—we know that, in the
open environment, plastics endanger wildlife in a particular way. As has been said, unlike other materials, they will persist for hundreds of years—we do not actually know how long, because none has fully decomposed— which is why we believe that they require particular, special forensic attention through these measures. Through the Bill, powers to place charges on single-use plastic items will be a powerful tool in helping us to reduce unnecessary single-use plastics.
The noble Viscount also mentioned cups. To reassure him: I recently learned that disposable cups filled with liquid drinks are classified as packaging and therefore obligated under the packaging producer responsibility regulations.
9.45 pm
On Amendments 130A and 130B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, the Government recognise that retailers such as supermarkets have a key role to play in helping improve resource efficiency, including through the packaging they use. We are already seeking to place new requirements on producers in relation to packaging, including plastic packaging, through packaging extended producer responsibility, which we will introduce through regulations using powers in Schedules 4 and 5 to the Bill.
This will see many retailers, including supermarkets and other businesses, subject to obligations that will include, for example, reporting the amount of packaging they have placed on the market; paying the full net costs of the management of this packaging, including disposal; and paying higher fees if the packaging is tough to recycle. This will incentivise supermarkets to choose more environmentally friendly packaging.
I have done it before, but like others I pay tribute to Iceland for the leadership it is showing. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that this cannot be about voluntary measures. Yes, Iceland has volunteered to do some great things, but that is not true of all supermarkets. As a Government we need to make what it has created—its best practice—the norm as soon as possible. That is the purpose of the regulations we are introducing.
The packaging extended producer responsibility powers to make regulations will also set definitions for different types of packaging, including primary packaging —the packaging that contains and protects a product—as well as packaging used in the transport and distribution of products. I know this is of particular interest to the noble Baroness.
The new regulations will require companies to report on packaging they have placed on the market, including the materials used and how much is recycled. That will ensure transparency, help with tracking our delivery against ambitious plastic packaging recycling targets, and show us where further action, such as introducing a ban or a charge, is needed.
With regard to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 141A and Amendment 140, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I reassure noble Lords that the proposal for extended producer responsibility for packaging will require producers who use harder-to-recycle packaging, such as sachets or polystyrene, to pay higher fees for
the management of this packaging, disincentivising its use. The test of such a policy will ultimately be the elimination of those harder-to-recycle materials altogether.
Under Section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Government already have the power to prohibit or restrict the use of various substances. This could be used to restrict or end the use of certain types of polystyrene in certain uses where it leads to environmental harm. I very much agreed with the frustrated description by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, of the difficulties of sachets and the case for eliminating their use—and we have the tools to do so. The Government will continue to monitor and review the latest evidence and introduce further bans where viable.
I turn to Amendment 141. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said at Second Reading:
“We are subsumed by plastic.”—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1297.]
She is right. The Government will implement a new plastic packaging tax from April next year, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned, to encourage greater use of recycled plastic and reduce the use of virgin plastic. It will incentivise more sustainable, reusable plastic packaging and stimulate demand for recycled materials. In addition, we already have a power in the Bill that will enable us to set charges for any single-use plastic. This includes those made from bio-based sources or designed to be biodegradable.
I will address the points made by the noble Baroness about compostable plastics. They usually require a specific set of circumstances to break down as intended, and under current practices we cannot yet guarantee that those plastics will be appropriately and properly treated. They are not always as they are described or as they seem. You could even say there is quite a lot of—I am not sure I would use the term—“fraud” in the sector; there is a lot of very misleading advertising. When processed incorrectly they can be—they are not always—a source of microplastics and can contaminate recycling streams. For that reason, we are working with the industry and the research community to better understand the impacts of using bio-based, biodegradable and compostable plastics, including their impact on existing waste treatment infrastructure and their actual, real-world degradation timeframes.
The Government will keep the treatment of these new products in the tax regime under review. We would of course consult before a charge is implemented and explore that with industry, as further developments in these materials are made and the availability of the infrastructure to treat them catches up.
Regarding the noble Baroness’s Amendments 142 to 145, compostable packaging is not generally collected for recycling at present. In fact, it is frequently stripped out from food waste before processing to avoid cross-contamination or machine damage. As a result, it is not one of the recyclable waste streams named specifically in the Bill. On the back of the research that I mentioned earlier and standardisation of what genuinely is compostable or biodegradable plastic—and as the science, technology and our understanding improve—the amendment that she has put forward would make a great deal of sense. If a plastic is genuinely compostable and not going to break down into small particles of plastic that will do even more harm, including it in
food waste to compost would make perfect sense. However, we are not there yet from a technological point of view. We certainly do not have the confidence to do that.
However, provisions in Clause 56 enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to add further recyclable waste streams for collection in the future. If compostable packaging was suitable for collection and recycling, if recycling it could have an environmental benefit and, crucially, if there was infrastructure for its collection, it could, as I said, be added to the list in future—but we have work to do.
I hope that I have addressed the concerns raised so far today on this issue. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and hope that the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.