Councils may find it difficult to continue all their recycling services if the government proceeds with two years of relatively flat packaging recycling targets, former environment minister John Gummer has warned.
Addressing recycling minister and fellow Conservative Lord Henley at a meeting of a grand committee on Wednesday (November 17), held to scrutinise changes to the producer responsibility regulations governing packaging waste, Mr Gummer said there was “real and fundamental” disagreement to the government's plans.
I do not believe that we face the problems that my noble friend suggests
Lord Henley
In particular, Mr Gummer – now known as Lord Deben – criticised the fact that packaging recycling targets for businesses will remain the same in 2011 and 2012, with the exception of a small increase in the material-specific recycling targets for steel and plastics (see letsrecycle.com story).
Under the regulations, producers of packaging have to pay towards the cost of recycling it by buying recycling evidence, known as PRNs, from reprocessors and exporters. This in turn acts as a subsidy for recycling and indirectly benefits those collecting material, such as councils.
Lord Deben, who first introduced the regulations into the UK and is chairman of the packaging producer compliance scheme Valpak, said that the largely flat targets would imapct negatively upon councils.
He said: “If we have two years of flat targets, there will be a considerable diminution in the amount of money that goes to local authorities. If the targets are low and people do not pay a proper price for recycling, the return to a local authority for collecting, say, bottles diminishes. It may be excluded altogether.
“A large number of local authorities may find it difficult in these straitened circumstances to continue with their services, which would great pity.”
Lord Deben added that packaging producer responsibility in the UK was already relatively cheap, only costing British businesses roughly £180 million to meet last year, compared to about £1.8 billion in Germany, and that there was a “universal” view that increasing the targets gently was the best way to proceed.
He said that the only other time that packaging recycling targets had been kept flat, in 2003, there were “very serious” effects – with recycling facilities laid up and developments delayed.
As a result, he implored recycling minister Lord Henley to set a more ambitious target for 2012 next year if necessary.
He said: “If there is a clear signal that local authorities are finding things more difficult than before, I hope he will give a commitment to come back to the house and lay a new order…if my noble friend can tell me that it will only be for a year I will be happier.”
“Possibility”
Responding to this, Lord Henley said that it was “always a possibility” that the government might change the targets for 2012 following the outcome of the waste strategy review, due to be published in Spring 2011.
Mr Henley said that other drivers, such as landfill tax, would ensure that recycling continued and said that it was important to keep costs down for businesses.
On the topic of prices for recyclables, he acknowledged that glass prices had already collapsed due to the falling value of the PRN (see letsrecycle.com story) but said that the market would recover and that the sector could cope.
He commented: “We have seen this in the past and it has gone up again. We have seen that with other recyclables. I think we can cope with that.”
Auditing
During the session, Lord Henley was also asked by Baroness Quin about an amendment in the packaging regulations which removes the requirement for reprocessors and exporters to have an independent audit, which can cost £10,000 for a large company.
She said: “When I first read this I felt some concern, because independent auditing requirements are often extremely important…I would be grateful if the minister could tell us whether the regulators have any outstanding concerns about that?”
Responding to this, Lord Henley said: “So far as I am aware, the regulators were perfectly happy. I am not aware of our concerns.”
Summing up the session, at which the amendments were agreed, Lord Henley said: “I hope, therefore, that the committee will accept that at this stage it is right and proper that the regulations go through and that we will consider them again in light of the review, which will be published in the Spring of next year.”
Register for free to comment