Question follow-through · 24593
Fires: Litter
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of levels of public awareness of the risk of wildfires posed by litter, included discarded glass bottles.
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
- 28 Aug 2026
- Target answer date
- 2 Sept 2026
- Answer
- 21 Sept 2026 · 24 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 4 · 1 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 2 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
28 Aug 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of levels of public awareness of the risk of wildfires posed by litter, included discarded glass bottles.
2 Sept 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
21 Sept 2026
Answer published
No assessment has been made of levels of public awareness of the risk of wildfires posed by litter, including discarded glass bottles. Government departments and agencies are working together on communications to raise public awareness of the fire risks a...
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.