Dr Allison Gardner

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing such an important debate. There are 51 pubs in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South, supporting 1,280 local jobs and contributing more than £40 million to our local economy. However, I have heard repeatedly from breweries and pubs in my constituency that the extended producer responsibility for packaging will have a substantial cost implication for those pubs, particularly for the smaller ones, which struggle to absorb additional costs. Although the scheme covers household waste, most glass pub products are classified as household waste, and as such, they are not exempt from EPR fees. Pubs now face a double whammy, as they will have to pay EPR fees on top of the costs that they already pay for waste collection and recycling through private contracts. Although I greatly welcome plans to amend that in the coming years, in the meantime, large pubs face, on average, costs of £2,000 per year. We know that brewers have slim profit margins already, at roughly 2p per bottle, so the EPR levy—or tax—threatens to eliminate those margins, and I worry that consumers will pay the brunt. In fact, the Government’s own analysis estimates that around 85% of EPR costs will be passed on to consumers. For bottled beer, that could mean an extra 5p to 7p per bottle—my Jim would really be annoyed about that. We risk driving up the cost of food and drink in our local pubs, potentially deterring customers and weakening the competitiveness of our sector. Heineken supports several pubs in my constituency, including the Spotgate, the Black Lake Inn, where I had a nice meal on Sunday, the White Hart, the Swynnerton Arms, the Roebuck Inn and the Princess Royal. I have heard directly from them about the real impact that EPR fees are having on their businesses. I know that there is a plan to adjust EPR fees in two years’ time, based on the environmental impact of packaging materials. However, under the current fee structure, which involves charging per tonne of packaging material, different packaging materials are charged at different prices. Often, packaging materials with the best recycling record pay the most, which is particularly damaging for businesses such as pubs, which rely on glass packaging. As a Stoke-on-Trent MP, it would be remiss of me not to mention the ongoing impact on the ceramics companies in my constituency. Heavy-duty packaging materials, such as glass and steel, which are commonly used by ceramics manufacturers, attract higher EPR costs due to their weight. The health of the ceramics industry relies on the glass industry. We cannot make glass without ceramics refractories. If the glass industry is on its knees, that will have a knock-on effect on the ceramics manufacturers. Although I appreciate that the implementation has already been delayed twice, I urge the Minister to rethink or to provide a clear and fixed date with at least one year’s notice. Businesses need that certainty to plan, invest and transition smoothly, without the disruption caused by shifting timelines.