I thank the noble Baronesses for their interest in this. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, is a waste nerd. Her social life is fascinating—having dinners discussing this—and I will seek to answer in a way that respects her genuine expertise. She is absolutely right that consumers will play a key role. In a way, this also responds to what consumers are demanding. When I was a councillor, my local authority recycled and diverted away from landfill approximately 17% of waste. I am glad to say that the administration who took it over raised the rate of diversion away from landfill to 90%. Householders are determined that the circular economy described by the noble Baroness should be relevant to their lives. They object dramatically to the idea that waste diverted from landfill goes to other countries, so we want to make sure that we are creating a circular economy in this country and that there are markets for the amount of waste produced.
The noble Baroness is right that we are increasing the amount we require to be checked to 60 kilograms per 75 tonnes. After close consultation and discussions with experts and local authorities and working with materials facilities operators, we think that is realistic and will give us the data we require to have a really clear view of what is being provided by these facilities. I cannot tell her what percentage will be separated waste and what will be mixed waste because different local authorities have different contracts and arrangements, but I assure her that we are involved in a detailed level of engagement and that issues such as the EPR administrator are fundamental to making sure that this progresses.
Both noble Baronesses raised the question of deposit return schemes. Noble Lords will be aware that we want to try to align our deposit return scheme across the United Kingdom, if possible. That has required us to talk closely to Scotland—which has, frankly, messed it up—and we now seem to be in a position to take forward, by some point in 2025, an effective and meaningful deposit return scheme that will deliver a massive environmental benefit. I am reminded that the plastic bag levy has seen a reduction in the use of plastic bags of more than 95%. We think that a properly structured deposit return scheme should have only a marginal inflationary effect and should incentivise people to be part of a scheme that will see a dramatic reduction in waste.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, touched on the timescale of the deferral. The deferral does not apply to all obligations and requirements under EPR. The start of producer payments under EPR will be
deferred by 12 months. This addresses another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. Producers obligated under EPR are still required to collect and report data as per existing regulations. We need this data to develop and then share estimated EPR fees. Gathering and sharing this information will help businesses prepare for these changes, and it is something that businesses have asked for. EPR payments deferral will also impact on some specific timelines, including the introduction of modulated fees and binned packaging waste fees and payments.
We are concerned about cost, and our response to the consultation on the EPR scheme included an impact assessment, which has been referred to and which covered the expected costs to materials facilities. As we developed the amending legislation, the definition and types of materials facilities that would be in scope were clarified. As a result, we updated our assumptions regarding the number of facilities that would be in scope from 739 to 159, reducing the sampling burden where possible. Using these updated numbers, we have estimated a lower cost associated with this legislation.
This is really important: the costs associated with the new requirements within this SI were found to be lower than previously estimated in the impact assessment produced for the EPR scheme. Although the scope has reduced, the methodology to estimate the impact on the materials facilities of enhanced sampling remains unchanged from the previously published EPR impact assessment.
5.30 pm
On the question about materials facilities, as I said earlier, they will be in scope of the new reporting obligations if they receive and manage at least 1,000 tonnes of household waste a year for the primary purpose of reuse and recycling.
I have talked about cost, but the facilities need the space and resources to implement these changes. Both the noble Baronesses are concerned about that point. We have provided guidance on GOV.UK, which we continue to review and update. The guidance will outline the sampling methodologies that can be used to help meet the requirements. I disagree with the noble Baroness: all guidance that comes out of Defra is perfect and always will be. I am being slightly facetious, but the guidance on this will absolutely be what industry, local authorities and providers will need. We will work with the industry and regulators to understand any barriers to implementing the requirements.
The Environment Agency intends to engage with all currently permitted materials facilities in England about the changes to the regulations. As I say, this is an immense engagement process. Regulators are working with Defra on further engagement with the wider industry and industry associations; we have been engaging with the waste management sector and will continue to do so on the transition required to adapt to the entire package of waste reforms. If companies do not comply, there will be sanctions. I will notify the noble Baronesses of when our guidance will be forthcoming, and I confirm that the rules around when we impose new burdens on local authorities will be honoured in this.
I hope that I have covered most of, if not all, the questions raised. This statutory instrument will make crucial changes to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. These amendments will introduce new sampling requirements on materials facilities and bring more facilities into scope. This in turn will give us enhanced data on waste quality and quantity, strengthening an original objective of the regulations in response to the post-implementation review, and support fair and accurate payment calculations within the EPR scheme.
I trust that noble Lords understand and accept the need for this instrument. I thank both noble Baronesses for their scrutiny and commend these draft regulations to the Committee.