Manufacturers in the UK’s glass sector have urged Prime Minister Andy Burnham to intervene in a growing dispute over the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) levy on packaging, warning that the policy poses a significant threat to the industry’s future. The levy, implemented last year by the Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra), charges producers according to the weight of packaging waste collected by local authorities, with the aim of encouraging more sustainable packaging practices and raising an estimated £1.6 billion annually.

The glass industry, concentrated largely in northern England, has described the levy’s impact as potentially “catastrophic,” citing a risk of dramatic decline in UK glass production. Nick Kirk, executive director of trade body British Glass, called for immediate government action within the next 18 months to support the sector. “Otherwise, we will see a dramatic decline in UK glass production,” he said, urging Number 10 North—the office led by Burnham in Manchester focused on regional economic growth—to break through interdepartmental divides and address the issue.

Rotherham Labour MP Sarah Champion, who organized a parliamentary debate on the matter in July, acknowledged the environmental goals of the EPR but criticized the implementation as “flawed.” She said the lack of coordination between government departments exacerbated the problem, potentially jeopardizing a key regional employer. Beatson Clark, a glass manufacturer in Champion’s constituency and the only British-owned independent glass container maker, highlighted the challenges faced by the industry. Managing director Eddie Pickering pointed to factors including high energy costs, increased imports following the removal of tariffs, and the disproportionate cost of the levy—£192 per tonne of waste glass—despite glass representing just 5 percent of packaging by volume.

Pickering said the levy made investments in decarbonization more difficult and was prompting some customers to switch to plastic alternatives, undermining environmental objectives. “We have supplied emails from our customers saying they are switching to plastic because of EPR,” he remarked. The preservation of glass manufacturing is seen as crucial for employment in economically challenged northern communities. Knottingley in Yorkshire, which hosts three glass factories, faces considerable risk if closures occur, raising concerns about local economic viability.

The beverage sector has voiced similar concerns. William Lees-Jones, managing director of Greater Manchester-based JW Lees brewery, estimated the levy would add 10p to the cost of a beer bottle. He warned that the policy’s uncertainty could reduce investment in packaging facilities, potentially leading to higher prices, reduced consumer choice, and the marginalization of smaller businesses.

While many MPs from different parties underscored the levy’s unintended consequences across various industries, some voices cautioned against altering the system too hastily. Andrew Opie of the British Retail Consortium argued that lowering fees arbitrarily for glass could increase costs for other packaging materials, pushing prices higher for consumers. He called for a unified approach, consolidating existing packaging taxes and ensuring that revenues are dedicated to recycling infrastructure. The Food and Drink Federation similarly advocates for an overhaul of the system.

Defra maintains that the EPR reflects international standards and is designed to encourage greener packaging by shifting recycling costs onto producers. The department said it is aware of industry concerns and engaged in ongoing discussions with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to explore ways to alleviate pressures on glassmakers. However, it remains uncertain whether the government will agree to the sector’s key request for a temporary 75 percent reduction in the glass EPR charge.

Industry leaders warn that without swift government support, foreign-owned glass manufacturers based in the UK may reconsider their investments and employment levels, threatening a reversal of the government’s wider deindustrialisation prevention objectives. “We don’t want deindustrialisation to happen,” Kirk emphasized, linking the debate to broader regional economic ambitions championed by Burnham’s Number 10 North initiative.