Question follow-through · 2599
Packaging: Recycling
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if her Department will consider the potential merits of more closely linking the Extended Producer Responsibility system to business profitability instead of packaging volume.
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
- Tabled
- 18 May 2026
- Target answer date
- 20 May 2026
- Answer
- 22 May 2026 · 4 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
18 May 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if her Department will consider the potential merits of more closely linking the Extended Producer Responsibility system to business profitability instead of packaging volume.
20 May 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
22 May 2026
Answer published
The Government has no plans to link Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging (pEPR) fees to business profitability. Turnover and packaging weight together determine whether a business has pEPR responsibilities, with a de-minimis threshold to reduce ...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.