Asked by: Tonia Antoniazzi (Labour - Gower)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether his Department has considered adopting a phased introduction of EPR fees.
Answered by Mary Creagh - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
PackUK calculates the pEPR fees based on the full net cost of efficient and effective collection systems. Therefore, fees must be collected from producers in Year 1 of the scheme, it should be noted that the fees can be paid in quarterly to spread the cost. The UK’s pEPR policy has been under development since 2019, with extensive engagement and consultation providing businesses with a clear indication of the scheme’s design and implementation. This policy underwent consultations in 2019, 2021, and a final consultation on reforms to the Packaging Recovery Note (PRN) system in 2022. Additionally, in 2023, the four nations of the UK consulted on the operability of the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024, and further amendments were made to address stakeholder concerns prior to final regulations being introduced.
Asked by: Tonia Antoniazzi (Labour - Gower)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if he will publish a comparative analysis of Extended Producer Responsibility schemes in other advanced economies, including any measures taken to prevent disproportionate cost burdens on the beer and pub sector.
Answered by Mary Creagh - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
International comparisons of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes are challenging due to differences in waste infrastructure across countries. The UK’s pEPR scheme covers more costs than those in other countries. For example, many European countries rely on 'bring sites' for glass recycling, which lowers collection costs. Furthermore, UK glass fees are likely to be higher due to the full inclusion of the costs associated with managing residual waste—waste not disposed of by consumers in recycling bins—something not included in the pEPR schemes of other countries. While the costs for different materials are apportioned accordingly, the UK aims to balance environmental objectives with the interests of all sectors, including the beer and pub industry.
Asked by: Tonia Antoniazzi (Labour - Gower)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate his Department has made of the proportion of extended producer responsibility costs that will be passed on to consumers; and what assessment he has made of the potential impact of those costs on the affordability of food and drink.
Answered by Mary Creagh - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The Department has assessed the impact of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) on both producers and consumers, including the potential effect on the affordability of food and drink. This assessment is included in Section 8 of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024: The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024.
We are closely monitoring the potential impact of these costs on consumer prices and remain committed to balancing environmental goals with economic considerations.
Asked by: Tonia Antoniazzi (Labour - Gower)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if his Department will publish the allocation of monies received through extended producer responsibility fees.
Answered by Mary Creagh - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
PackUK will publish annual reports and financial statements, which will provide transparency on the allocation of funds received through the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fees. These reports will clarify how the collected fees are distributed and used to support the scheme’s objectives.
Asked by: Tonia Antoniazzi (Labour - Gower)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether he plans to (a) review and (b) adjust extended producer responsibility fees to ensure they do not (i) adversely impact particular sectors and (ii) lead to unintended consequences in the supply chain.
Answered by Mary Creagh - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
Base fees for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) are designed to reflect the net waste management costs incurred by local authorities, with future fee modulation intended to encourage the recyclability of materials. This policy approach, established in March 2022, has been informed by two public consultations under the previous administration. Producer fees for packaging are calculated per tonne of household packaging placed on the market. This ensures a fair distribution of costs in line with the regulations. From Year 2 of the EPR scheme (2026-2027), fees will be modulated to reflect the recyclability of packaging materials, with less recyclable packaging incurring higher fees. The types of packaging subject to higher or lower fees will be determined by assessments based on the Recyclability Assessment Methodology (RAM).
Asked by: Tonia Antoniazzi (Labour - Gower)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what information she holds on the number of trail hunts on land owned by Departments that have resulted in the (a) hunting and (b) killing of an animal in the last 12 months.
Answered by Trudy Harrison
Defra does not hold this data. The enforcement of the Hunting Act is an operational matter for the police.
Asked by: Tonia Antoniazzi (Labour - Gower)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what information she collects on the prevalence of trail hunting on her Department's land.
Answered by Trudy Harrison
Defra does not hold this data. The enforcement of the Hunting Act is an operational matter for the police.
Asked by: Tonia Antoniazzi (Labour - Gower)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent assessment her Department has made of the potential merits of banning sky lanterns.
Answered by Rebecca Pow
We commissioned new research to examine the impact on the environment of sky lanterns in order to further understand the risks they pose to the environment. The research concluded in the Spring, and we are considering next steps.
Asked by: Tonia Antoniazzi (Labour - Gower)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
Answered by Trudy Harrison
The Government considers that the Dangerous Dog Act 1991 plays an important part in our overall approach to tackling dangerous dogs and protecting the public. We have established a Responsible Dog Ownership working group involving the police, local authorities and other key stakeholders to consider all aspects of tackling irresponsible dog ownership. The working group is considering improved data collection and reporting, dog training, consistency of enforcement practices and education and communications to encourage responsible dog ownership. Recommendations are expected later this year.
Asked by: Tonia Antoniazzi (Labour - Gower)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether her Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of banning the use of (a) electronic shock collars used in conjunction with containment fences for cats, (b) other electric shock collars and (c) other aversive training devices.
Answered by Rebecca Pow
We have laid legislation for approval by Parliament which will ban the use of hand-controlled electronic training collars that deliver an electric shock to cats and dogs given their scope to cause harm and be misused.
The ban will not extend to other types of collars which are controlled by hand-held devices.
We do not plan to extend the prohibition to the use of invisible fencing or containment systems.