Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2025

Considered in Grand Committee

16:15:00

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2025. Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 3 December 2024 and confirm the final policy position for simpler recycling in England. For too long, households in England have been presented with a muddled and confusing patchwork of approaches to bin collections. The Government’s simpler recycling reforms will ensure that across England people will be able to recycle the same materials, whether at home, work or school, putting an end to confusion over what can and cannot be recycled in different parts of the country. We are all responsible for addressing our country’s waste problem, and we know that citizens want to play their part and recycle as much as possible but that they are frustrated by the limited and confusing recycling services. Through these reforms, we are empowering citizens to turn their good intentions into simple, effective actions. Simpler recycling is one of the three core pillars of the Government’s ambitious collection and packaging reforms, alongside the forthcoming deposit return scheme and the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging. Together, we estimate that the collection and packaging reforms will support 21,000 jobs in our nations and regions and stimulate more than £10 billion of investment in recycling capability over the next decade. The reforms are also estimated to deliver carbon savings of more than 46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035, valued at over £10 billion in carbon benefits. Since 2015, household recycling rates in England have plateaued at around 45%, decreasing to 43% in 2022, so we urgently need to take steps to improve the nation’s recycling performance. Simpler recycling will end the postcode lottery of bin collections in England by ensuring that all households and workplaces can recycle the same core waste streams: plastic, metal, glass, paper and card, and food waste, with garden waste for households upon request. Simpler recycling will improve services for householders by introducing weekly food collections for all households in England and kerbside plastic film collections. This will make a significant contribution towards meeting our ambition to recycle 65% of municipal waste by 2035 and our target to reduce residual waste generated per capita by 50% by 2042 compared with 2019 levels. Furthermore, these changes represent a critical first step towards meeting the commitment in our manifesto to transition to a resource-resilient, productive circular economy which delivers long-term, sustainable growth. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the exemptions introduced by the instrument. The legislation to implement the core legislative requirements for simpler recycling was introduced by the previous Government through the Environment Act 2021. This legislation has already come into force; in practice, this means that simpler recycling will automatically come into effect, beginning in March 2025 for workplaces and March 2026 for households. Sections 45A, 45AZA and 45AZB of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended by the Environment Act 2021, require that the six recyclable waste streams—plastic, glass, metal, paper and card, food waste, and garden waste—are collected separately, alongside residual waste. The legislation states that local authorities and other waste collectors can make use of an exception to collect these recyclable materials together, if it is not technically nor economically practicable to collect them separately or if there is no significant environmental benefit from doing so. However, if using an exception, waste collectors must produce a written assessment to record the justification. This instrument sets sensible exemptions from this condition, allowing any combination of the recyclable waste streams of metal, glass and plastic to be collected together, at all times. This exemption applies to collections from both households and workplaces. It also allows food waste and garden waste to be collected together from households, at all times. Waste collectors will not have to justify co-collection of any of these materials, as they would have to under the primary legislation as it stands. We have taken this decision because the Secretary of State has determined, based on the evidence, that co-collection of those materials does not affect the potential for those materials to be recycled. We will not include paper and card in the exemption. This must, by default, be collected separately from the other dry recyclable waste streams. This applies to collections from both households and workplaces. This is because paper and card are particularly vulnerable to cross-contamination from food and liquid commonly found on other recycling materials, which could significantly reduce the potential for collected material to be recycled. However, we want to provide flexibility for local councils and other waste collectors. Where waste collectors consider that it is not technically or economically practicable to collect paper and card separately, or where there is no significant environmental benefit from doing so, they may collect paper and card together with other dry recycling, if they provide a written assessment to document the justification. Waste collectors will decide where an exception applies. There is no need to request permission from Defra or the Environment Agency to co-collect paper and card where an exception applies. We have published guidance for local councils and other waste collectors to support their decision-making regarding the co-collection of paper and card with other dry recyclable materials, where appropriate. All exemptions will be automatic and local councils and other waste collectors will not need to apply for them. They will need to produce only a written assessment to co-collect paper and card with other recyclable materials. To reiterate, without this instrument, they would have had to produce written assessments to co-collect any combination of recyclable materials. These exemptions mean that the new default requirement for most households will be four containers: for food waste, mixed with garden waste if appropriate; paper and card; all other dry recyclable materials, these being plastic, metal and glass; and non-recyclable waste. As we are maintaining flexibility, councils and other waste collectors may choose to separate materials further if this suits local need. We believe that this is a sensible, straightforward approach to the collection of recycling for every household and workplace in England. This instrument will also mean that micro-firms—workplaces with fewer than 10 full-time equivalent employees—will not need to arrange for the recycling of the core recyclable waste streams, as required by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, until 31 March 2027. Without this exemption, under the primary legislation, micro-firms would have had to meet the simpler recycling requirements at the same time as all other businesses—by 31 March 2025. We recognise that micro-firms, of which there are an estimated 1.8 million, may face more challenges introducing the changes, so this phase-in period provides additional time for them to prepare. These are substantial reforms. We will support local councils and workplaces to deliver these new requirements in the most cost-efficient way. Right now, we are focused on raising awareness and providing guidance, including webinars and toolkits, for both local councils and workplaces on how to deliver efficient services. For local councils, we are working to distribute funding for food waste collections as soon as possible; we have already provided £258 million of capital funding, and we will also provide resource and ongoing funding. We will continue to engage with stakeholders in order to understand the challenges that they are facing and to ensure the successful delivery of simpler recycling. In conclusion, the need for simpler recycling has never been clearer. By simplifying what households and workplaces across England can recycle, these long-awaited reforms will jump-start England’s faltering recycling rate, maximising environmental benefits, ensuring that we keep our precious resources in use for longer, and unleashing investment and economic opportunities. I beg to move.

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on introducing the regulations before us, which I broadly support. I will direct my questions to two specific areas. The Minister mentioned that guidance will be given to councils on the separate collections. My concern is around what guidance will be given by councils to households in particular. I remember chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee at the time of the “horsegate” scandal, where people found that they were eating prepared foods—usually lasagne—made from horsemeat, not beef. It ended, I think, a lot of people’s desire to carry on eating these pre-prepared, highly expensive, undernutritious, highly salted foods. However, if you are a householder and you have one of these trays in front of you, it normally goes, I assume, in your food waste because it is highly contaminated—or the packet that the lasagne I have eaten was in will have to be rinsed sufficiently to ensure that it is not contaminated. Who is going to guide households on what to do with such prepared food, where it is difficult to get rid of the residual food waste? How does the Minister intend to ensure that, if it goes into the paper recycling, which will now be a separate collection, this will not lead to greater contamination? How will guidance be given to households to ensure that there is no cross-contamination? How does the Minister plan to ensure that there will be no increase in cross-contamination because of the contaminated stuff going into the wrong recycling bin or plastic bag—whatever it is called—that we are going to be issued with? I would also like to press the Minister on ensuring that a strong message will go out from the Government to councils that there will continue to be a mandatory weekly food waste collection. Anything less frequent than that will lead to vermin and a lot of highly undesirable threats to households, through no fault of their own.

My Lords, I made my maiden speech last week simply to make sure that I could speak in today’s debate. I congratulate the Minister on bringing these regulations forward; it is fair to say, I think, that they have been a long time in gestation. I recall, back in 2018, the resources and waste strategy setting out the idea of trying to get consistent recycling. I have to say, when I became the Secretary of State a while ago, I worked quite hard on this issue to try to get simpler recycling to achieve the outcomes that the Minister has set out.

16:30:00

There are a couple of issues I want to raise with the Minister; in particular, the fact that we are moving from a minimum of three bins to a minimum of four bins. At the time when we went through the process of trying to make it more straightforward for people to recycle, the best-performing councils in the country, by and large—I think, seven out of the top 10—had three bins. They did not have four. They had three. This is in significant contrast to certain parts of Wales, where there were up to nine bins. A lot of work was done on this at the time.

Paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum suggests that

“76% of consultation respondents agreed with the proposed exemption to allow co-collection of all dry recyclable waste streams in all circumstances”.

It is raised a few times in the impact assessment but, in particular, page 29 talks about how

“paper and card are particularly vulnerable to cross-contamination from food and liquid commonly found on other recycling”.

Will the Minister say where that evidence has come from and where is it shared? That has not been the experience of the highest-performing councils in the land. I am conscious that there has often been a psyche, a psychology or whatever phrase is the right one about the worry about consultation that my noble friend Lady McIntosh pointed out, but practice shows that that has not necessarily happened. Indeed, there could be an opportunity for Ministers to revisit this if this was not the case.

I am also conscious that in terms of these regulations, doing a TEEP exercise may seem quite straightforward to people, but actually it takes time, resource and money and is open to legal challenge. That is why I am concerned that we will see councils around the country which had originally thought there were going to be three bins. A couple of months ago, it increased to four. That adds complication to thinking about how you do your bin collection. One thing politicians know is that if you get bins wrong, you are really in trouble with your constituents.

I am just conscious that there has been quite a significant change. It may seem only a minor change. I appreciate that we might not get the answer today from the Minister—I know she a huge remit in her policy portfolio, but not directly this—but I think it would be worth while to share more understanding of why there has been such a change in the evidence that the Secretary of State decided to make that change.

In terms of an extra element of how this transpires, back nearly a year ago, or whenever it was, there was a consultation accompanied by draft statutory guidance, and a decision was made in May last year. I appreciate that it is perfectly acceptable for the Government to change their mind, but that was to remove the statutory guidance that originally was going to be laid alongside regulations to require a minimum of fortnightly collections. That has been dropped, and I say to the Minister that page 14 of the impact assessment refers specifically to the fact that a lot of the calculations have been done on the basis of fortnightly collections.

It was the case that about 80% of councils collected fortnightly and several continued to collect weekly. In fact, places such as Westminster and similar collect more than once a week. We had seen only about seven or eight councils move to three-weekly collections. My fear is that we are starting to see a massive acceleration, particularly in councils led by Greens or Liberal Democrats, towards three-weekly collection of basically residual waste. Of course, food waste will be required to be collected every week but, frankly, I am worried about environmental health issues that will start to arise as we start to see three-weekly collections. Indeed, in Bristol, the council has decided to move to four-weekly collections. I genuinely believe that this could become a real issue and that people might say that this is about money or about trying to require or encourage people to do even more recycling. I genuinely believe it is a mistake, and I hope in many ways I am proved wrong.

It is important to try to get a regular rhythm of collection and to avoid, frankly, quite smelly waste lingering in people’s driveways, especially in much more condensed accommodation. While councils can choose to do this weekly at the moment, and I understand some of the economic pressures they may feel under, it would be a retrograde step to go that way. I also do not know what consequences there would be for the impact assessment accompanying the regulations from that likely change away from fortnightly collections across the country.

The Minister and I knew each other for quite a while in the other place, although she has been at this end a lot longer than I have. Overall, I absolutely support the motive to increase recycling rates and have simpler recycling. As I said, I put a lot of my time and effort into making this happen. However, I encourage her to take back to the department that it should have steps looking ahead—to watch out, make some guidelines and be prepared to revisit this issue if necessary.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument, which I broadly support. The Environment Act 2021 made provision for household waste to be collected for recycling as one of the main planks of its purpose. We are four years on from that Act. The collection of separated waste on a countrywide basis was moving slowly towards completion at the time of the general election. I congratulate the Government on moving this issue forward and not leaving it on the back burner. I have received a brief from the Green Alliance and seen the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The instrument explains very well what will happen. English waste collection authorities and other waste collectors are to collect plastic, glass and metal recyclable waste streams together in all circumstances and not just where an exception applies. Paper and card will be collected separately from other recyclables to avoid cross-contamination. Food waste will be collected with garden waste; again, not just where an exception applies. This decision is not in line with international best practice nor government evidence. There will be provision for an exception to be applied to card and paper. This will be done by a written assessment. This is not robust enough and is not likely to lead to increased recycling rates generally, as paper and card will be contaminated when mixed with plastic, glass and metal, some of which will have food residues still present. The Minister has already referred to this. The Government have decided that it is acceptable to collect glass, plastic and metal together and that this will not have a significant impact on the ability of the materials to be recycled. No evidence is provided that this is the case. However, there is evidence that 16.6% of materials at recovery facilities are rejected due to contamination. While the contamination rate for fully separated collected recycling is much lower, the co-collected material contamination rate is 13.5%, compared with just 4% for collections of recyclables kept separate. WRAP suggests this could be as low as 1.6%. The Environment Act 2021 was clear that recyclable waste was to be collected separately so that recycling rates could increase. Recycling rates have not increased from 44%-45% since 2015, as the Minister referred to. The country therefore missed its target of 50% recycling by 2020 and the target of 65% by 2035 looks extremely unlikely. The public care deeply about the hazard that waste causes to wildlife, domestic animals, biodiversity and our general enjoyment of our environment. Plastic pollution in particular is damaging our bird and animal species, with reports of plastic in birds’ nests and hedgehogs getting discarded strimmer thread caught around their legs. If recycling rates are not increased, our reputation in the light of more efficient schemes in neighbouring countries will be damaged and the confidence of the public will be further dented. If the public believe that, although they are keen to assist with recycling, a proportion of this is still going to landfill, they will be disheartened and stop bothering to separate their waste. According to the Green Alliance, the cost of contamination to UK recyclers is more than £50 million a year. I lived in a council area that for many years collected weekly food waste and recycling and separated paper and card, cans and metal, glass and plastic, some in bins and some in bags. The residual used to be collected at two weeks and then moved to three weeks; there was no problem. The system should not get bogged down in the number of bins that people may have to have. If recycling is carried out correctly, the residual waste should automatically reduce. I return to my comments about evidence. Is the Minister able to say what evidence there is that contamination will not occur if the waste streams for recycling are collected together? The original impact assessment noted that mixing food and garden waste together affects quantity and quality, which leads to “lower amounts of food waste being collected and less efficient treatment through in-vessel composting compared to anaerobic digestion, which produces energy and organic soil improver or fertiliser”. According to WRAP research in the Government’s impact assessment, “separate weekly collections of food waste can capture twice as much material per year compared to mixed food and garden waste”. Food waste makes up nearly a third of residual waste. Providing separate collection options is the best way in which to achieve the legally binding target in the Environment Act on waste minimisation. The Environment Act’s legally binding targets are not to be discarded without serious consideration of the implications for our wildlife and biodiversity. Is the Minister able to share the Government’s evidence on what led to the exemption for separate waste collections and to what extent the Government expect local authorities to make use of the exemption? Cost alone should not be the overriding consideration. There has been extensive consultation with the industry on this matter, and with the English waste collection and disposal authorities and the Environment Agency. Some 76% of respondents agreed with the proposed exemption to allow collection of all dry recyclable waste streams in all circumstances. Agreement by the industry does not automatically mean that recycling rates will increase. I note that Ipsos has been commissioned to do an evaluation of Defra’s resources and waste policy, including simpler recycling, over a five-year period from February 2022. We are three years into this evaluation. Is there any mid-term update on how it is going? While I congratulate the Minister and the Government on taking recycling collections forward, I am disappointed that we had static recycling rates at 44%-45% for 10 years under the previous Administration. I am not convinced that the scheme now being introduced will move us forward to the 65% needed by 2035. I appreciate that local authorities and the industries will have to amend the way that they collect and deal with various waste streams, but they had since 2021 to think about this and get ready. I fear that the proposals in this SI are not stringent enough to make the difference that is needed for the sake of our country, its people and its wildlife.

My Lords, if it is Monday in Grand Committee, it must be recycling day. Generally, I am very supportive of these regulations, if they bring about some standardisation in our bin collections around the country, but they raise several important questions about how the changes will be implemented and the potential long-term impact. Permitting English waste authorities to co-collect dry recyclable waste streams—plastic, glass and metal—in a single container is eminently sensible; so, too, is keeping paper and card separate. I have concerns about amalgamating garden and food waste, and I shall come to that later. The new default requirement for most households and workplaces will be four containers: one for residual, non-recyclable waste; one for food waste mixed with garden waste; one for paper and card; and one for all other dry recyclable materials, including plastic, metal and glass. Although these exemptions are a sensible and pragmatic solution to logistical challenges, they raise a crucial question: how will the quality of recyclable materials be affected by the co-collection of plastic, glass and metal? Co-collecting different materials might cause contamination, making it harder to separate and process them effectively later in the recycling process. I hope that the Government will make it clear to local authorities that we expect co-collection to increase recycling for each of the co-collected products and that they must avoid contamination.

16:45:00

Experts in the waste and recycling sectors have generally supported these changes. For instance, Michael Topham, the CEO of Biffa, has highlighted the need for a smooth transition to the new system and the environmental benefits that it can bring. However, when it comes to the recycling of paper and card, quality is crucial. It is vital, therefore, that these materials are clean and dry as they enter the waste stream and are not contaminated in any way. Dimitra Rappou, an executive director at the Confederation of Paper Industries, has expressed apprehension about the potential contamination of paper and card when co-collected with other materials.

Mr Andrew Large, the director-general of the CPI, has briefed me that the technicalities around implementation will be crucial. He says that, to date, the technically, environmentally and economically practicable—TEEP—rules’ waste separation arrangements have failed to drive improvements in the quality of recyclate due to a lack of standardisation in the assessment process, which has resulted in very few local authorities acting to modify their collection methods. The CPI is therefore calling for standardised, detailed and evidence-based guidance on the application of TEEP. This should include clear specifications for the analysis methods evidence base required from local authorities to ensure greater consistency of results, providing local authorities with adequate flexibility to secure an exemption when one is genuinely required rather than simply for the convenience of the local authority. This guidance should be developed in collaboration with the paper industry and include, as a minimum, mandatory periodic reviews by councils that have obtained an exemption via a TEEP assessment. Furthermore, the Government should actively monitor the implementation of TEEP to ensure compliance and credibility in the conclusions.

The Minister rightly mentioned the exemption for microfirms. The second exemption extends the deadline for microfirms to comply with the new recycling rules until 31 March 2027. Although this delay offers microfirms more time to adjust, it also raises concerns. Will this two-year delay significantly hinder progress toward achieving higher recycling rates in the non-household sector? Microfirms constitute a significant portion of non-household waste producers, and their delayed compliance may undermine the overall impact of these reforms. Furthermore, what support will be available to microfirms during this extended period? Clear guidance, tailored resources and support systems will be essential to ensure that these businesses can transition effectively without compromising the environmental objectives of these regulations.

These exemptions are part of a broader effort to simplify recycling processes and ensure compliance with the waste hierarchy. However, they also raise concerns about how they will be practically implemented across different sectors and regions. Are local authorities fully prepared for these changes? Do they have the capacity to enforce these new rules consistently and effectively? Crucially, will the Government ensure that local authorities do not abuse Section 57 of the Environment Act and use either the TEEP excuse—that it is not technically, environmentally or economically practicable to collect recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately—or the excuse that collecting recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately has no significant environmental benefit?

Additionally, we must ask whether businesses in rural areas will have equal access to recycling services as those in more urban centres. The accessibility of these services is a key factor in ensuring that the regulations are applied fairly across all areas. How will the Minister ensure that these measures are implemented equitably?

We must consider the issue of collecting food waste with garden waste. As a gardener, I like the idea of vegetable food waste and even cooked food being collected with garden trimmings for composting, but I have some concerns. WRAP says that we have 6.4 million tonnes of food waste and that the main items are bread, potatoes, bananas and salad items. That is all great composting stuff. However, WRAP also says that 250,000 tonnes of meat is dumped each year as waste. The main reason people dump raw meat is because it smells, looks off or is past its use by date.

I am very cautious about the inclusion of meat waste, particularly raw meat, in compost bins. As the Minister will know, raw meat, such as pork—we are never supposed to eat pink or underdone pork—can carry the dangerous pathogens of tapeworms, and these pathogens must be neutralized through thorough heating in the composting process. If the composting process does not reach the required temperature to kill harmful pathogens, and that is about 160 degrees Fahrenheit or 71 degrees centigrade, there is a risk that harmful microorganisms could survive and contaminate the final product, but I also understand that if composting goes above 60 degrees it kills off the good microbes, which are essential for good compost. I am quite happy to be shot down by the Minister if the vets and the Chief Medical Officer say that the science and the cooking times are wrong there, but that is what my research suggests and it worries me.

We all read stories at Christmastime about people throwing away whole turkeys— carcasses and bones—because they had gone green. I have used bonemeal in the garden. I use gloves, and I always make sure it is ground down before use. I am not being squeamish about this. I was a farmer’s son. I would muck out the pig bins, and I am used to getting my hands dirty, but I would be a bit nervous about handling compost that had undercooked or raw meat in it. I do not expect this to be a big issue. I am not nitpicking here; one might not catch anything, but it requires only one incidence of something happening to undermine the whole recycling scheme. That could negatively affect the public response, so I would like assurance from the Minister. What measures are in place to ensure that raw meat waste will be properly neutralised if it is going in with garden waste for composting?

These regulations represent a significant shift in waste management policy in England, but their success will depend on striking the right balance between flexibility and robust enforcement. While the exemptions provide necessary flexibility to local authorities and businesses, they must be carefully monitored to ensure that they do not undermine the effectiveness of the recycling system. As we move forward, it will be essential to engage with all stakeholders, including businesses, local authorities, environmental organisations, and the general public, to ensure that these regulatory changes lead to meaningful improvements in recycling rates and waste management across England. That is where education is essential. For recycling rates to increase, the Government must engage in an education campaign advising all waste depositors how not to cross-contaminate products, especially paper and card. As noble Lords were speaking, I was thinking of how, when I take things down to the recycling bins in my town of Penrith, a lot of the card there I see is pizza boxes. It is a huge amount of card, but I wonder how much bits of ketchup or cheese baked inside ruins them for recycling. If that is the case, and whole areas of paper and card are rejected, local authorities must make sure that householders know how to keep those things clean and separate because we all want this to work.

I am grateful that the Government have brought forward these regulations, I look forward to clarification on some of the concerns raised by noble Lords and me, and I look forward to seeing the regulation implemented in due course.

My Lord, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate today and for their support for this statutory instrument. I particularly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to Defra debates in this House. She brings huge knowledge and experience, and I look forward to working with her. In response to the last question, I will start with cross-contamination because all noble Lords mentioned it in relation to the exemptions impacting material quality. To reiterate, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the impact of contamination is not significant in terms of the overall impact on the ability of materials to be recycled when co-collecting plastic, metal and glass. As I said, separate collection of paper and card will be required by default due to the potential impact of co-collection on material quality. Waste collectors will be able to co-collect paper and card with other materials, where justified on technical, economic or environmental grounds. We are going for an evidence-based pragmatic approach to ensure a suitable balance to support environmental outcomes, while providing local flexibility and convenience for households while at the same time looking to increase recycling rates. Where waste has been separately collected, Regulation 14 of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 requires waste collectors to ensure that it is not then mixed with other materials with different properties unless certain exemptions apply; for example, if doing so would not damage material quality. This will ensure that contamination of paper and card is minimal once it has been collected. The number of councils likely to use an exemption to co-collect paper and card was mentioned. We recognise that there are various technical, economic and environmental circumstances in which separate collection is not practical. In such cases, waste collectors will retain flexibility to co-collect paper and card with other dry recyclable materials but must produce a written assessment to record this justification, as I mentioned earlier. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked what evidence there is to support the paper and card decision. We reviewed extensive stakeholder feedback and evidence about plans for collection of dry materials and the Secretary of State concluded that there is some evidence to indicate that simplifying the number of bins can help participation in recycling. But evidence also suggests that systems with one mixed dry recycling bin have the highest levels of contamination, which would affect the recycling rate. Contaminated materials may be rejected after collection if it is not economically viable to reprocess them. As has been mentioned, paper and card are particularly vulnerable to cross-contamination from food and liquid, commonly found in other recycling materials. We do not want that to happen because it significantly reduces the quality of collected materials. That is how that decision was taken. On monitoring and evaluating, we are committed to monitoring the success of the simpler recycling project and have commissioned Ipsos, in partnership with Ricardo and Technopolis, to carry out an evaluation of Defra’s resources and waste policy programme, including simpler recycling, over a five-year period that started in February 2022. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about micro-firms and whether the two-year delay would affect recycling rates. We are proceeding with the exemption to allow micro-firms until 31 March 2027, as I mentioned, but also to allow them to implement in the most sustainable and cost-efficient way. Including micro-firms in scope of this policy is estimated to increase the non-household municipal recycling rate by 9.3 percentage points, as micro-firms are responsible for around 30% of that waste. The noble Lord also asked about support for micro-firms. We are working with WRAP and representative voices from each sector to develop sector-specific guidance for the Business of Recycling website. It is designed to support businesses as they transition to compliant waste collection services. Four sector-specific guides—on retail and wholesale, hospitality, health and social care, and offices—have been published so far. Three more—on food manufacturing, education, and transport and storage—will be published shortly. We are also working to develop guidance on how to optimise waste services to minimise the cost burden where possible and, in some cases, to maximise any potential cost savings. Noble Lords asked about local authorities and their preparedness. Councils have been planning to implement simpler recycling since the legislation was passed back in 2021 with the Environment Act. We have already provided £258 million of capital funding to support this and will shortly confirm resource funding for the 2024-25 financial year.

17:00:00

We are aware that some councils may find the introduction of the reforms more challenging than others, and we are working closely with local authorities to support readiness for these new obligations. We are also working with WRAP to provide guidance on best practice and to scope additional areas of support.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked how councils will be communicating with households. We think that local authorities are the organisations best placed to communicate the new collection requirements to residents when they are rolling out the services. To support this, we will provide transitional resource funding for food waste communications. Under the extended producer responsibility for packaging, producers will contribute to the costs of public information and any campaigns around packaging waste. We will continue to consider the most appropriate approach to supporting local authorities and other waste collectors with public engagement and communications related to the simpler recycling collections in England and will be providing further guidance on this in due course.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Bakewell, asked about bin numbers. The new default requirement is going to be four containers. They can be various types of containers. They could be bins, bags or stackable boxes, so there is flexibility about what that looks like. We think that it is a sensible approach for local authorities to determine how effectively to deliver this through container types, but we also think that the new default requirement of four is the most sensible and practical approach.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked whether food waste collections will still be required every week. Amended Section 45A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires local authorities in England to arrange for the separate collection of food waste from all households at least once a week, so all local authorities should provide this service for every household by 31 March 2026, unless they have been given a transitional arrangement for this. I was also asked about garden waste. Local authorities can continue to make a reasonable charge for the collection of garden waste if they choose and householders will continue to make a decision about whether they need it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about residual waste collections and frequencies. This SI relates only to the exemptions to allow the co-collection of some recyclable materials in the same container without the need for a written assessment and to allow micro-firms until 31 March 2027 to comply with the requirements, so the residual waste collection frequency is beyond the scope of the SI we are debating today. However, through simpler recycling, all householders will receive a comprehensive and consistent set of waste and recycling services. This is designed to enable householders to recycle as much waste as possible. The Government’s priority is ensuring that household needs are met, and we expect local authorities to continue to provide services to a reasonable standard, as they do now.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about organic recyclable materials and the co-collection of food and garden waste. To maximise flexibility for local authorities and households, we are introducing this exemption to allow the co-collection of food and garden waste in the same container without the need for a written assessment. The Secretary of State is satisfied that this will not affect their ability to be recycled or composted, since the materials can always be processed through in-vessel composting when mixed. The exemption will be automatic, and local authorities and other waste collectors will not need to apply to use it.

On this note, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about safety and raw meat in garden waste. The garden waste stream does not include uncooked meat or waste products of animal origin, but food waste does, so these can now be co-collected. Under the existing requirements, waste collectors must always dispose of co-collected food and garden waste at a composting site that complies with the animal by-products regulations to ensure that the pathogen risks are appropriately mitigated. Clearly, we need to ensure that we have the right temperatures for disposing of such waste in order for it to be safe. The noble Lord mentioned WRAP data. We understand from WRAP that at least 41 councils collected mixed food and garden waste in 2022-23. There are ways of managing this in place already.

Finally, the noble Lord asked about rural areas and collections—I apologise if I have missed any of his other questions. Under Section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils are required to arrange for the collection of commercial waste in their area if requested by the occupier of the premises. So, by implementing simpler recycling, we will ensure that all businesses, whether rural or urban, have access to this expanded range of recycling services.

I will check to make sure that I have answered all noble Lords’ questions. If I have not, I will get back to noble Lords, but I hope that I have covered most of them. This instrument is necessary to ensure that local councils, waste collectors and businesses are able to deliver simple recycling in an effective and straightforward way. The legislation is already in force, as I mentioned; it will now come into effect from the end of March for workplaces and from the end of March next year for households. I thank noble Lords for their contributions.

Motion agreed.