Proceeding contribution from Leigh Ingham (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 July 2026. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility.
Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
One of the largest employers in my constituency is Bostik, which is famous for Blu Tack. It also produces quite a lot of adhesives used in the DIY and home repairs sector. Bostik agrees with the scheme—it does not oppose the scheme in and of itself—but it does see one issue: although 95% of the company’s products go to site and are used by professionals, it will be charged the EPR on 100% of its products because it cannot trace every single item. It therefore supports the Builders Merchant Federation’s argument that commercial and industrial packaging should remain outside full cost recovery, because trade packaging waste is already covered through merchant distribution. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could consider that in the implementation stage, right at the beginning of the process?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 788 c980
- Session
- 2026-27
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Costs Fees and charges Liability Imports Glass Manufacturing industries Recycling Packaging Standards Industrial waste Plastics Hospitality industry
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on hansard.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-07-02 08:58:59 +0100
- URI
- http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-07-01/26070172000532
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-07-01/26070172000532
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-07-01/26070172000532