Packaging Regulations changed to “meet targets”

These regulations will provide greater clarity for businesses and remove any unnecessary administrative burden

 
Joan Ruddock

However, concerns have been raised that the changes might reduce the environmental standards to which metal is reprocessed overseas – and unfairly favour the metal packaging sector through a legal “loophole”.

Yesterday, before the amendment was passed, climate change and waste minister Joan Ruddock told the Twelfth Delegated Legislation Committee of the House of Commons that it was a mere “technical change” to the Packaging Regulations.

It would give more discretion to the Environment Agency in deciding whether packaging sent abroad is recycled to standards “broadly equivalent” to the UK and therefore eligible for recycling evidence, she explained.

Mrs Ruddock claimed that the change was particularly important for the metals sector, because metal was often traded through brokers, which made it hard to obtain evidence of equivalence, and because the high value of metal made PRN revenue less attractive.

She explained that this would help the UK meet its European packaging recycling targets for 2008, which were “at risk” of being missed (see letsrecycle.com story).

She said: “We are confident that the metals are going to the right places and are being handled in broadly equivalent, modern facilities.”

“These regulations will provide greater clarity for businesses and remove any unnecessary administrative burden,” she added.

Effect

However, Bill Wiggan, the Conservative MP for Leomister, and Martin Horwood, Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham, sought reassurance that the amendment was not merely a legal “loophole” which might prove problematic in the future.

Mr Wiggan asked why the government was not considering the value of PRNs instead of reducing the standards that had to be met, and called for assurance that the Environment Agency would still work to strict environmental guidelines.

He said: “I hope the minister will clarify the criteria and the agencies will enforce them. I hope we are not creating a loophole.”

Mr Horwood went further by calling for a “guarantee” that environmental standards would not be compromised under the amendment, and questioned whether problems might arise if the high value of metal dropped.

He said: “We could be introducing a bit of a loophole if the buoyant market does not persist.”

Value

Responding to these fears, Joan Ruddock said that the high value of metal would not change and that the regulations were designed to benefit the metal recycling sector in particular because of its unique economic situation.

She stressed that the environment would still be protected because shipments of metal abroad would still be covered by the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations.

And, she said that the Environment Agency would judge the environmental standards to which metal was being reprocessed by looking at the standards imposed by the local competent authority.

Concluding her speech, she said: “There is no loophole. Legitimate trade is happening anyway. This is a way to prove that there is equivalence even though it is proving problematic to get proof at the moment.”

The amendment received unanimous support from the committee, and now passes into law. This took place after the amendment was also scrutinised and approved by the House of Lords on Tuesday (July 8).