We understand the logic behind some of the changes the previous Government made to its Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) proposals in response to the last consultation. We sympathise with the aim of reducing the financial impact on individual producers to avoid an escalation of food prices under EPR for packaging. However, there is a risk that exempting a large number of smaller producers from financial obligations—and no longer covering the costs of commercial waste— could undermine the...

We understand the logic behind some of the changes the previous Government made to its Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) proposals in response to the last consultation. We sympathise with the aim of reducing the financial impact on individual producers to avoid an escalation of food prices under EPR for packaging. However, there is a risk that exempting a large number of smaller producers from financial obligations—and no longer covering the costs of commercial waste— could undermine the scheme’s aims to make ‘polluters pay’ and incentivise more sustainable product design. We recommend that the Government should set out a roadmap for low Type: recommendation | Number: 9 | Response status: not_addressed Government response: The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. As part of our pEPR proposals, we set out to make sure that as much packaging as possible is brought into the system while avoiding placing unnecessary burdens on the smallest producers. In 2021 we