New documents have reveal that lobbyists for Britain’s biggest food brands successfully pushed for a £1.7bn packaging tax to be deferred.
Reports show that the fees for a new scheme to improve recycling rates and tackle plastic pollution were due to be imposed this month, but were delayed for a year by the last Tory government after the industry complained about the costs in a series of private meetings.
The extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme aims to shift the costs of collecting and recycling waste on to the companies that make packaging for soft drinks, confectionery and other consumer goods. They would pay fees based on the amount of packaging they use, with lower fees for more sustainable options.
But the charges of up to £605 a tonne of packaging were delayed after lobbying by three trade bodies that represent hundreds of food and drink companies, according to internal government records seen by the Observer and the investigative publication Democracy for Sale.
Rudy Schulkind, a political campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said Tory policy on the scheme had been defined by “dither and delay” and Labour now needed to implement a robust scheme.
Read also: Flash floods, landslides hit parts of Bosnia, killing at least 16
“They need to show their mettle and stare down the lobbyists,” he said. “Otherwise, they risk repeating the failure of the last government. The cost of this scheme to industry is nothing compared with the cost of the plastic pollution crisis to our planet.”
On 15 March last year, officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) attended a stakeholder meeting with the Food and Drink Federation (FDF), the British Retail Consortium and the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment.
The group agreed to meet once a month and to exclude other organisations from the talks, such as environmental bodies.
A summary of the meeting obtained under freedom of information laws reveals that the “role and remit” of the forum was to “ensure industry has early sight of plans and proposals and prepare engagement with ministers”. When a civil servant “asked whether the membership should be expanded”, it was agreed to “keep the current membership in the interests of more candid conversations”.
The lobbyists complained to Defra about “inflationary pressures, consumer value for money concerns and the high costs for industry”.
Documents show that that one unnamed lobbyist “suggested that a pause was needed to reflect on the industry concerns and review how to move forward”.
Another business representative warned of “serious concerns about the timeline and industry trust” and asked for “a phased approach to cost recovery so that full costs would not be imposed in year one”.
Story was adapted from the Guardian.
