The Scottish Government

Next »

Listen

August 2005
Paper 2005/20

ISBN 0 7559 2676 5 (Web only publication)

This document is also available in pdf format (924k)

CONTENTS

Abbreviations
List of tables
List of questions in the consultation paper
Introduction
Chapter One Further discussion of the proposed obligation on franchisors, pub companies and similar arrangements
Chapter Two Underlying data
Chapter Three Business targets
Chapter Four Ensuring a focus on 2008

Appendices
Appendix 1 Graphs illustrating target scenarios
Appendix 2 Basis for scrutiny of scheme and producer operational plans
Regulatory Impact Assessment
Draft consolidated Regulations

ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Totals in the UK waste stream 2006-2008 published November 2003 (now overtaken).
Table 2a Packaging arising in the UK waste stream 2004-2005
Table 2b Packaging arising in the UK waste stream 2006-2010
Table 3 Obligated tonnage 2001-2004.
Table 4a Estimated obligated tonnage 2005-2008 - EXCLUDING any additional tonnages ( e.g. from leased, franchise etc).
Table 4b Estimated obligated tonnage 2009-2010 - EXCLUDING any additional tonnages, ( e.g. from leased, franchise etc).
Table 5 Additional net obligated tonnages expected to be added to the obligated figures from the proposals on leased and franchise packaging.
Table 6a Estimated obligated tonnage 2006-2008 INCLUDING obligated tonnages from leased and franchise packaging.
Table 6b Estimated obligated tonnage 2009-2010 - INCLUDING obligated tonnage from leased and franchise packaging.
Table 7 Recovery and recycling in the UK 2004.
Table 8 Targets to be met by EU Member States by 31 December 2008.
Table 9 business targets published in November 2003 (now overtaken).
Table 10 Glass - starting point for glass demand in 2005.

LIST OF QUESTIONS IN THE CONSULTATION PAPER

Q1. Do you agree that this definition of license agreement (and therefore the definition of a licensor) covers all of the cases that the Government intends to obligate under this head, namely businesses that operate "franchise" and similar arrangements?

(a) If not, which types of business are not included in this definition?

(b) Why do those businesses not come within the definition?

(c) What are the essential features of the agreements those types of business have entered into with their licensees?

(d) How would you modify the definition in order to cover those businesses?

Q2. Do you agree that this definition of pub operating agreement (and therefore the definition of pub operating business) covers all of the cases the Government intends to obligate under this head, namely pub operating companies?

(a) If not, which types of business are not included in this definition?

(b) Why do those businesses not come within the definition?

(c) What are the essential features of the agreements those types of business have entered into with their tenants?

(d) How would you modify the definition in order to cover those businesses?

Q3. Do you agree that the packaging that should be obligated is that packaging (or packaging materials) supplied by the licensee that bears the trade mark of the licensor or have been purchased by the licensee as a result of the agreement, or in the case of a tenant, that packaging (or packaging materials) that the tenant purchases that are associated with the purchasing obligation as indicated?

Q4. The Government would welcome comments on the targets shown in scenarios 3, 4 and 5 below. Do you agree that targets should be set to rise in roughly equal amounts (tonnes) each year, or do you prefer front-loaded targets? or back-loaded targets?

Q5. Do you agree with the proposal that compliance schemes should re-apply for Approval from the Secretary of State or Scottish Minister each year?

Q6. Do you agree that when a scheme re-applies, it should submit its operational plan both to the relevant Agency and to Defra/the Scottish Executive so that additional scrutiny can be carried out?

Q7. Do you agree that it would be helpful and facilitate the monitoring of schemes' and producers' operational plans if these were submitted in the proposed two-part format with a template that can be entered into the scrutiny database relatively easily?

Q8. Do you agree with the proposed circumstances listed above as the basis for Approval not to be granted?

Q9. Do you agree with the proposed meaning of "to meet" obligations?

Q10. Do you agree with the proposed meaning of "to fail to a significant degree" to meet one of the material-specific recycling obligations?

Q11. If you do not, what would you propose instead?

Q12. Do you agree with the proposed fee structure of £110 per member when schemes are granted 'conditional approval?

Q13. Do you agree with the suggested criteria for conditional approval to be granted? If not, what would you suggest instead?

Q14. Do you agree with the proposed introduction of "conditional approval"? Do you agree with the proposed conditions with which a scheme granted conditional approval would have to comply?

INTRODUCTION

1. This consultation paper presents proposals by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government for changes to the current producer responsibility regime for packaging waste as set out in the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997, as amended. These Regulations are referred to as "the Regulations". This consultation paper considers what business recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste are needed in 2006, 2007 and 2008 to ensure that the UK meets the targets in the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste 94/62/ EC (as amended by the new Directive 2004/12/ EC) by 31 December 2008. This consultation paper also sets out indicative targets up to 2010 and discusses, in light of experience so far, the need for obligated parties to ensure that they are giving the right degree of focus to achieving the targets in 2008, as well as to the interim targets to be met, en route, in 2006 and 2007. There is also further consideration of the details of the proposals to obligate franchisors and similar businesses that were first consulted on earlier in the year. A draft of the proposed consolidated Regulations that are intended to replace the current Regulations is also attached and views of stakeholders are also invited on these.

2. This paper therefore completes the exercise begun in the earlier paper that the Government published on 30 March 2005, entitled Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) - Consultation Paper on Measures to Increase Obligated Tonnage. This paper takes account of the responses to the earlier consultation, particularly, as far as the level of obligated tonnage is concerned, the responses to the proposals which would increase the amount of obligated packaging. The closing date for comments on that consultation paper was 22 June but the document is on the Defra website and available at www.defra.gov.uk.

3. Attached to the consultation paper is a draft consolidated Statutory Instrument which reflects the changes in the first consultation (published in March 2005) as well as anticipating those in the present paper. It should be noted that where consultation responses point to a different measure, these draft provisions can be changed. The draft consolidated instrument has been prepared on the basis of a single instrument for the whole of the GB, as this would continue to provide for a single, seamless producer responsibility system for packaging. The Regulations are planned to be made by the Secretary of State for Environment and extend to Scotland under the provisions of Section 57 of the Scotland Act 1997, by agreement of the Scottish Ministers.

4. The intended effect of the proposals in both consultation papers is that the UK should be in a position to meet the packaging waste recovery and recycling targets by 31 December 2008 in the most cost effective way; and to contribute to the UK's Waste Strategies for the management of waste. The costs and benefits of the proposals in this paper are addressed in the Regulatory Impact Assessment ( RIA) that follows the consultation paper.

5. The Government's ¹ proposals for new business targets to be set in the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2005 are set out in Chapter Three. The underlying data are discussed in Chapter two. Chapter Four looks at additional proposals, e.g. to require schemes to re-apply for Approval from the relevant Minister each year, and for ensuring greater clarity for producers, and for the market, where there are instances of non-compliance. Chapter One provides further discussions relating to franchises, pub companies and similar business arrangements.

6. Comments are invited on the proposals in this paper. They should be sent to:-

Gary Gray,
Waste Regulation Unit,
Scottish Executive
MailPoint 11
Victoria Quay
Edinburgh
EH6 6QQ

or, electronically, to

waste.team@scotland.gov.uk.

Would respondents sending comments by email please include their or their organisation's name and postal address in the body of the email.

The closing date for receipt of comments is 3 October 2005

Publicity and openness

7. The Executive may wish to publish responses or deposit them in its libraries. If this is done, all responses will be so published or deposited unless the respondent specifically asks for his or her response to be treated as confidential. Confidential responses will still be included in any statistical or summary form which does not identify the source of the views expressed

8. Under normal circumstances the consultation exercise would run for 12 weeks. In this case, however, and it is considered to be in stakeholders' interests to consult for a shorter period to ensure that the consolidated Regulations can come into force by 1 January 2006. In these exceptional circumstances consultation will extend to 6 weeks only; any longer period runs the very real risk of there being insufficient time to lay and debate the Regulations in the UK Parliament for them to come into force on that date. Ministers, the Advisory Committee on Packaging and other interested parties are content with the reduced consultation period.

Next »