🌿 Environmental Protection

• The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Mary Creagh, proposed the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024, aimed at reducing plastic waste through a deposit return scheme.

• Mary Creagh highlighted the UK’s poor recycling record and the long-standing promise of a deposit return scheme, criticizing past Conservative governments for delays despite recommendations from the Environmental Audit Committee.

• The new scheme aims to combat the “take, make, throw” model that leads to littering, landfill, and incineration. It targets plastic bottles and drinks cans, which constitute a significant portion of litter in the UK.

• Dr Andrew Murrison raised concerns about the environmental impact of incinerators and sought a moratorium on new constructions, aligning with actions in Wales and Scotland.

• The proposed deposit return scheme is modeled after successful international examples like Germany and Ireland, which have achieved high return rates. The scheme is expected to boost recycling rates in the UK, currently lagging behind.

• Jim Shannon from the DUP questioned the involvement and communication with Northern Ireland regarding the scheme, expressing concerns about coordination and input across different regions.

• Barry Gardiner commended the scheme’s wide public support and noted its potential to create new green jobs and reduce carbon emissions significantly. He also acknowledged previous government efforts but stressed the urgency of action.

• The scheme is part of broader packaging reforms, including extended producer responsibility and simpler recycling programs, expected to generate substantial investments and jobs in the recycling sector.

• Concerns were raised about the impact on small retailers and the need for them to be supported in implementing the scheme effectively.

• Andrew Griffith, speaking for the Conservatives, criticized the scheme’s timing, citing economic pressures on businesses due to recent government policies. He questioned the scheme’s costs and its regressive impact on consumers.

• Wera Hobhouse of the Liberal Democrats supported the initiative but called for a unified UK-wide scheme to avoid confusion and extra costs for businesses operating across different regions.

• Concerns about glass recycling were highlighted, with some suggesting its inclusion in the scheme could improve its effectiveness, referencing successful schemes globally.

• Local authority involvement and the need for adequate funding for their roles in the scheme were emphasized, as was the potential impact on their recycling revenue.

• The debate concluded with a vote, approving the draft regulations with 352 votes in favor and 75 against.

• Additional points of order were raised concerning a British citizen imprisoned in Egypt and corrections to earlier parliamentary statements.

The session showed a high level of disagreement, particularly from the opposition, resulting in a rating of 4. This score reflects a strong opposition primarily from the Conservative Party against the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024. The disagreements centered around several themes:

1. Political Opposition and Policy Changes: The Conservative opposition, led by Andrew Griffith, strongly criticized the initiative, contrasting their approach to environmental issues with the current government’s proposals. They highlighted their past achievements on recycling and questioned the timing and economic impact of the new regulations (e.g., accusing the government of anti-growth measures and forecasting economic drawbacks for businesses).

2. Implementation and Scope: There was significant discussion and disagreement on the scope of the scheme, especially regarding the exclusion of glass. Members such as Sarah Champion and Carla Denyer expressed concerns about this omission, suggesting that a more comprehensive inclusion might be necessary for the scheme to be effective, reflecting disagreement on how the policy should be shaped.

3. Impact on Businesses and Economy: The Conservative Members, like David Simmonds, expressed concerns over the economic implications of the scheme on local authorities and businesses, arguing it would lead to increased costs and burdens. This represents a fundamental disagreement on the economic feasibility and impact of the regulations.

4. Interoperability and Regional Concerns: Another point of disagreement arose from issues of interoperability between different regions of the UK. Jim Shannon repeatedly questioned the lack of coordination with Northern Ireland, reflecting dissatisfaction and a disagreement on how the scheme was being implemented across the UK.

5. Historical Accusations: The session saw accusations of dithering and delay by the current government against the former Conservative administration, despite the latter’s involvement in initial development of the scheme. This reflects a disagreement over the narrative of policy development and implementation.

However, the disagreement rating does not reach the maximum of 5 because:

• Some parties, like the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, expressed general support for the scheme, albeit with specific concerns about implementation.
• There were also expressions of cross-party cooperation, such as from Barry Gardiner, who emphasized the importance of bipartisan action on environmental issues, suggesting some collaboration alongside the dissent.

In conclusion, while the session was marked by significant contention and disagreement, particularly from the Conservative opposition, the presence of some supportive and cooperative elements justifies a rating of 4.