Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2008

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2008. The noble Lord said: We meet today to debate a proposed technical change to the UK’s packaging regulations. I assure noble Lords that I have checked this. It is not an underhand fiddle; it is a purely technical change to the regulations. The regulations remove an administrative burden from exporters of metal packaging waste intended for recycling overseas. After the packaging regulations came into force in 1997, the UK's packaging waste recovery rate rose from 30 per cent to around 63 per cent by the end of 2007. This is an excellent achievement by all sectors involved in the packaging chain, and all parts of the industry deserve congratulations. Alongside the overall directive target of 60 per cent for recovery and recycling, the UK also has to meet a 50 per cent recycling target specifically for metals. The amendment will ensure that we are able to count eligible packaging waste towards the achievement of the packaging directive targets for recovery and recycling. I emphasise that it does not reduce the level of environmental protection contained in the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations. Metal smelting is a relatively clean process, and market intelligence suggests that most of the metal exports are reprocessed at the top of the range of industrial plants. These are often owned by major multinational companies. The environmental benefits of recycling metals are beyond doubt. As scrap metals have a high intrinsic value, there is little or no risk that shipments would get dumped. We are confident that the metals are going to the right places and are being handled in broadly equivalent conditions in modern facilities, but exporters cannot always obtain the evidence to show that this is the case. This places the achievement of the packaging directive’s recycling target for metal at risk, as we cannot meet it without export. The amendment that we are proposing to the packaging regulations would ease this problem. It gives the Environment Agency more discretion in assessing what sound evidence of ““broadly equivalent”” would mean. The original regulations seemed to be accepted by the industry without complaint. This measure may appear to be an example of typical Defra gold-plating, but it is proposed with the best of intentions. The industry was relaxed about the original regulations and believed that it could cope with them. However, since their introduction, complaints have arisen with regard to metal. Therefore, we need to make this technical adjustment. As I say, it meets all the environmental aspects and targets. The Environment Agency is in charge of this matter, but the amendment gives it more discretion. I commend the regulations to the Committee. I beg to move. Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2008. 23rd report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Rooker.)