Call for evidence outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 14 January 2023

Executive summary

The government is committed to leaving our environment in a better state than we found it and protecting it for future generations. The 25 Year Environment Plan and the Resources and Waste Strategy for England outline the steps we will take to achieve that, including eliminating all avoidable plastic waste by 2042.

We have made significant progress already, bringing in measures to restrict the supply of plastic straws, drink stirrers and cotton buds in 2020 and, as of January this year, announcing our intention to ban the supply of single use plastic plates, cutlery, balloon sticks and expanded and extruded polystyrene food and drinks containers from October 2023.

In November 2021, in conjunction with the consultation, which proposed these further bans, we launched a call for evidence on other commonly littered and problematic plastic items to help inform future policy making.

We were particularly interested in wet wipes, tobacco filters, sachets, and single-use cups, as well as exploring how the government could overcome barriers to reuse and refill.

In total, 2,173 responses were received through the survey on GOV.UK and by email. Views received by all mediums of communication have been considered in the development of our next steps.

The breakdown of respondents to the call for evidence via email and the survey on GOV.UK is as follows:

Respondents	Count
Member of the public	1,736 (80%)
Manufacturing industry	58 (3%)
Retail industry	44 (2%)
Public body	81 (4%)
NGO	87 (4%)
Other	145 (7%)
Not answered	22 (1%)

Please note, the above statistics do not sum up to 100% due to rounding.

Call for evidence items

Wet wipes

When inappropriately disposed of, wet wipes can cause significant harm to the environment, through blockages in sewers and plastic pollution in aquatic environments. The call for evidence explored a number of policy options in relation to wet wipes containing plastic, including a ban, mandatory labelling on packaging, an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme and also whether the existing Fine to Flush standard is effective in reducing sewer blockages. A summary of responses can be found below:

In total, 96% of respondents stated they would support a ban on wet wipes containing plastic. The ban was strongly supported by almost all groups, including members of the public, retail industries, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and public bodies. Of the responses supporting a ban, some wanted the ban to be extended further beyond solely plastic wet wipes and supported alternative, non-plastic wet wipes being banned too. Others noted the significant damage the plastic materials can have on the environment, noting them as a source of microplastic pollution. Those least in favour of a ban were from manufacturing industries, where 50% agreed. Many responses on both sides noted concerns of material switching and the potential environmental harm from non-plastic alternatives, should a ban be imposed.

We also asked whether any exemptions should exist, in the event of any future bans to these items. On medical exemptions, many responses (47%) disagreed with the need for exemptions in these settings, with a further 18% stating they did not know. Many that disagreed noted the fact that alternatives to plastic wet wipes exist, for example a reusable cloth that can be washed. NGOs also highlighted concerns of loopholes from unnecessary exemptions in general. Those that supported exemptions, stated of the benefits of wet wipes containing plastic in industrial settings – such as food and professional cleaning industries. In general, however, the vast majority of respondents did not see a need for exemptions to a ban outside of medical settings.

Regarding the water industry’s existing Fine to Flush standard, half of all respondents were aware of it, with members of the public least so. Overall, 56% of respondents deemed the standard as not effective in reducing sewer blockages caused by wet wipes, while 3% thought it was effective. Many respondents, including some water companies, noted that labelling wet wipes as ‘Fine to Flush’ was confusing to customers and provided mixed messages around the correct disposal of these items, in that wet wipes should be disposed of in the bin, but ‘Fine to Flush’ may encourage consumers to flush them down the toilet – making behaviour change difficult. A large number of responses also raised the issue that wet wipes labelled as ‘Fine to Flush’ still take too long to break down in waterways and can still block sewer systems. However, some responses highlighted the lack of Fine to Flush wet wipes available on the market, with others adding this was a factor as to why the standard was not currently effective but noted it could be if made mandatory.

On questions to implement mandatory labelling on packaging about disposal and the impact of wet wipe products on the environment and a mandatory flushability standard, the majority were supportive of these measures – 93% and 72% agreed respectively. One theme that was prevalent throughout was the need for clear, concise and consistent messaging on correct disposal of wet wipes. The need for clear labelling was echoed by the Waste & Resources Action Programme’s (WRAP) ‘On-pack Labelling and Citizen Recycling Behaviour’ report which noted that citizens do not invest a significant amount of time looking at on-pack information when purchasing or disposing. Those in favour of mandatory standards argued that, while the standards increase consumer understanding of appropriate disposal, they should be made more difficult to pass so that fewer wet wipes may be labelled as flushable, reducing greenwashing claims. Others that disagreed underlined that encouraging a single-use and flushable culture should simply not be supported. Once again, many respondents stated that they believe a consistent message should be delivered – that all wipes should not be flushed.

Around half of respondents indicated they would support an EPR scheme for wet wipes, but many noted the need for a holistic approach. Some that disagreed wanted tougher measures (bans), while others disagreed as they argued for no intervention. A number of responses also added that producers should not be held responsible for a poor choice made by a consumer.

Government response

Given public appetite for implementing a ban on wet wipes containing plastic, we note this to be a course of action that will be carefully considered. What currently remains unclear is how effective a ban solely on the plastic contained in wet wipes would be in reducing blockages in sewers. With concerns existing over the effectiveness of the ‘Fine to Flush’ standard on blockages in sewers and the extent to which materials labelled as ‘Fine to Flush’ still persist in waterways, an evidence gap remains.

As such, the government procured a research project which sought to consider the impact of wet wipes on blockages in the sewage system, whilst also considering the potential effects of plastic pollution from wet wipes if they are flushed and subsequently reach the water course. The research project focused on the behaviour of wet wipes of varying composition and different fibre lengths in sewer-like conditions.

We also undertook market research to gain information on the type of wipes placed on the market across the UK and the settings these are used in.

These processes will directly inform our understanding of the scope of any future policy actions, such as a ban and whether there are specific instances where exemptions may or may not need to exist.

We want to make sure policy measures take a holistic approach and do not simply shift to alternative materials in wet wipes, which could in turn cause equal levels of environmental harm and sewage blockage. Our aim is to develop a combined approach that takes account of the impacts on our sewer system, plastic pollution and marine litter.

Tobacco filters

Defra’s latest litter composition study, carried out by Keep Britain Tidy (KBT), found on average that of every 100 items of litter, 66 were cigarette butts and 2 were other smoking related litter. When littered, cigarette butts release not only plastic into the open environment, but also nicotine, heavy metals, and other chemicals. The call for evidence explored different options to tackle issues associated with tobacco filter littering and responses to these are summarised below:

The vast majority of respondents (94%) supported the government taking regulatory action to tackle the littering of tobacco filters. Most tobacco manufacturers were not supportive of regulation, suggesting that an ongoing voluntary programme on tackling the issue should be evaluated before considering regulatory action. One tobacco manufacturer did support regulation, noting that the industry should pay a proportionate share of costs associated with tackling tobacco filter littering.

If the government were to take forward an EPR scheme to tackle tobacco filter littering, the most popular cost that should be covered by producers was campaigns aimed at promoting responsible disposal, which 86% of respondents supported. This was closely followed by the cost of provision of bins and management of binned filters (81%) and clearing up ground litter and subsequent treatment (76%). The cost of data gathering and reporting received the least support (56%). Other costs identified included the cost of taking enforcement action against those who litter filters, which some NGOs said should also be covered.

Regarding other potential regulatory approaches, some public bodies suggested a ban or restriction on tobacco filters containing plastics, as did members of the public. Members of the public, some NGOs and other respondents suggested greater use of fines for littering of tobacco filters, including increased fines. Other respondents also highlighted the importance of reducing smoking rates across society with initiatives to help achieve this being funded by the tobacco industry.

Several respondents said that it was difficult to calculate financial costs or that they did not hold the relevant information from which to calculate the financial costs. A retail respondent and some NGOs highlighted WRAP’s report on the Financial Costs of Packaging Litter, which amounted to £46 million in the UK, though some highlighted limitations with the methodology used can be underlined. Some NGOs provided estimates for the financial costs for certain local areas.

Regarding the environmental impacts of waste cellulose acetate tobacco filters, one public body respondent referred to reports of filters being composed of both plastic and toxic tobacco remnants. The response also noted that littered filters may be consumed by animals, break down into microplastics that find their way into the food chain or leach heavy metals. One manufacturer suggested that waste cellulose acetate tobacco filters can take between three months and 15 years to biodegrade depending on conditions.

One university respondent quoted a literature review which stated that tobacco filters can affect the growth, behaviour, and reproductive output of individual organisms in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. They also quoted a study that found that the growth and germination of terrestrial plants was reduced, even with unsmoked filters, suggesting cellulose acetate itself can cause impacts even without the extra toxicants after smoking.

On the environmental impacts of tobacco filters made from alternative materials, several respondents stated that they do not have sufficient data to answer this question, and members of the public tended to be unsure of the difference in the environmental impact between tobacco filters made from alternative materials and those made from cellulose acetate, noting that they believe harmful toxins will still be introduced into the environment. A manufacturer highlighted that the environmental impact will be dependent on which alternative materials are used.

One university respondent noted that the results of their studies on this were mixed, finding no significant impacts of the biodegradable tobacco filters in their marine experiment, but in their freshwater experiment, leachate from either biodegradable (cellulose) or non-biodegradable (cellulose acetate) smoked tobacco filters caused equal mortality of freshwater pond invertebrates. They also stated that leachate from biodegradable tobacco filters may have a relatively higher concentration of metals than plastic filters.

One NGO stated current estimates are that biodegradable butts take 2.3 to 13 years to degrade into compost, while cellulose acetate butts take 7.5 to 14 years. Several NGOs claimed that filters of any material will introduce hazardous chemicals, even if biodegradable, with some stating that the little evidence which is available suggests that biodegradable filters offer no environmental benefit while possible misleading consumers into thinking that they can litter the tobacco filters.

Regarding the environmental impacts of smoking alternatives, one retail respondent explained that the usage of e-cigarettes contributes significant amounts of plastic, stating they are single-use items with little standardisation in recycling methods or collection meaning that the plastic is destined for landfill, incineration, or the environment.

The majority of public bodies stated they didn’t have enough data on the environmental impacts of smoking alternatives, though one noted that e-cigarettes contain lithium-ion batteries that require appropriate disposal which needs to be clearly communicated. They stated there are a number of fires every year as a result of disposing items that contain lithium-ion batteries. Another said that as they are generally single-use items there are potential impacts from littering, fires, pollution, waste generation and consumption of resources.

Some NGOs also stated that there is a growing litter problem relating to other smoking and vaping-related items. Some pointed to research in the USA that suggests inappropriate disposal among young e-cigarette users and that nearly half of young users didn’t know what to do with used e-cigarette pods and disposable devices. Members of the public also highlighted the amount of plastic used in smoking alternatives, such as vape pods, and how these can still be littered.

Government response

On behalf of Defra, WRAP have carried out research into options for tackling littering of tobacco filters, including extended producer responsibility. The research report will be published in due course and we are now considering next steps in this area.

While this call for evidence did not explore issues around waste generated from disposable vapes, it is worth noting that work is currently ongoing in this space. We are reviewing the current producer responsibility systems for waste electricals and batteries and plan to publish consultations on both areas this year. The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations were developed at a time when the vaping industry was in its infancy and so it is right that in undertaking that review, we consider what, if any, changes to that legislation are needed to ensure the vaping sector specifically play its part in properly financing the cost of collection and treatment of their products when they become waste.

Single-use plastic sachets

Single-use plastic sachets can cause considerable harm to the marine and terrestrial environment when disposed of incorrectly. They are unlikely to be recycled due to their small size, which makes it difficult to segregate and clean them. We wanted to gather more evidence on the environmental issues associated with single-use plastic sachets, as well as gauging support on different policy suggestions, such as a ban and a charge.

Many responses from different groups expressed the desire for clarity over defining single-use plastic sachets. Respondents provided many additional examples of what could be classed as a single-use plastic sachet such as COVID-19 test packaging, coffee and laundry capsule packaging, therefore understanding the scope for future policy measures would be key. While many agreed of the harmful environmental impacts from these items, many groups, including from public bodies, also highlighted the lack of evidence that exists on single-use plastic sachets. It was generally accepted, however, that these items are not easily and commonly recycled. Equally, external partners from industry noted a lack of sustainable alternatives to these items and, as such, it was essential to make sure future policies do not lead to worse environmental outcomes overall.

In total, 86% of all respondents supported options to consult on a ban on single-use plastic sachets in all outlined scenarios – which included ‘permanent food and drink outlets’, ‘mobile food and drink outlets’ and ‘beauty industry free samples/single use multipacks’. 5% of respondents stated they did not support the ban in any of the scenarios. Those against were either not aware of any sustainable alternatives or afraid available alternatives would result in higher environmental or health impacts. They believed that these impacts should be fully considered. One theme that was prevalent from both sides, was the need for workable alternatives. Overall, refillable dispensers were mentioned as the most desirable alternative to single-use plastic sachets. Respondents provided other examples of sachets made from alternative materials, such as potato starch, vegetable-based materials, and paper. But niche applications of single-use plastic sachets, such as rations in the military, were also mentioned as a particular challenge to overcome in the event of a ban.

Regarding a charge, 69% supported options to consult on a charge on sachets in all outlined scenarios (as above). While there was some agreement for a charge in principle, many respondents claimed that a straightforward ban would be more effective and that a charge should only be explored if a ban did not take place. Some also commented that a charge would not change behaviour and the costs would simply be passed onto the customer.

Government response

We appreciate the evidence provided by all respondents on this subject. Defining single-use plastic sachets as broadly as possible at this stage was important for us to better understand the scope of any future policy options, as well as noting any applications where barriers may exist.

Existing policies are already being progressed which will impact single-use plastic sachets, namely Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging (pEPR). As most single-use plastic sachet applications are defined as ‘packaging’ items under existing packaging regulations, these will also be incorporated under pEPR and subject to disposal cost fees and reporting requirements. Fees will be introduced from 2024 and modulated to reflect the recyclability of packaging from 2025. You can read more about these measures in the pEPR government response and in the published guidance.

The Plastic Packaging Tax was introduced in April 2022 at a rate of £200 per tonne for plastic packaging (including plastic sachets) manufactured, or imported into the UK, that does not contain at least 30% recycled plastic. This is intended to provide a clear economic incentive for businesses to use recycled plastic in the manufacture of plastic packaging, which in turn will create greater demand for this material. This will stimulate increased levels of recycling and collection of plastic waste, diverting it away from landfill and incineration.

Collectively, these existing measures are expected to have a positive impact on the volume of non-recyclable plastic sachets placed on the market. We will continue to utilise packaging data, reported under pEPR, to monitor these volumes and take appropriate action in the future.

Single-use cups

Single-use cups are a commonly littered item in England. Defra’s 2020 Litter Composition Analysis, conducted by Keep Britain Tidy, found that ‘coffee cups’ were the fourth most littered item by volume in England. With low recycling rates, these items can cause significant harm to the environment when disposed of incorrectly, as they are commonly made from or contain plastic. We asked whether there would be any support for the government consulting on a proposal to introduce a charge for single-use cups and if so, what the scope should be on such measures.

In total, 85% of respondents support the government consulting on a proposal to introduce a charge for single-use cups. Predominantly, those in favour were members of the public, NGOs, public bodies and ‘others’ – that included people from education settings, local community groups and small charities. These respondents noted that a charge could drive behaviour change towards consumers bringing along reusable alternatives, noting how it had previously worked with the carrier bag charge. Others commented that such a measure needed to consider other government initiatives taking effect, such as pEPR and how a charge would interact with this. A number of respondents from all sides also wanted regulations to go further, urging the government to take stronger action in the form of a ban. Respondents that aligned themselves with the manufacturing industry were the most divided on this question, with a near 50-50 split on those that agreed and disagreed. For those that disagreed with this option, from all groups, some discussed the potential negative impacts that could be felt by consumers, retailers and the high street more generally. The economic cost formed a big part of those against a charge, yet others highlighted that this would be the only way to incentivise change and that the cost needed to be large enough to have a meaningful impact.

87% of respondents believed a charge should apply to businesses of all sizes, while 89% of respondents agreed a charge should be for both hot and cold drinks. Most responses stated they did not want to see loopholes and unnecessary exemptions exist. Specifically, a large number of responses said the temperature of a drink was not important, only adding further confusion, as the impact of these items when they escape into the natural environment is not determined by this. 7% of respondents stated that the charge should not apply to businesses of all sizes, with many of those worrying about how this would impact small business. It was said however, while smaller businesses should be supported through this change, including all would limit loopholes and create a level playing field for the industry.

Government response

In the government response to the consultation on Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging, we announced we will introduce a mandatory takeback requirement for fibre-based composite cups. Sellers of filled fibre-based composite cups that employ 10 or more staff (Full Time Equivalents) will be required to provide a dedicated bin for the separate collection of cups from 2024, and report on the tonnage they have placed on the market and the tonnage they have collected and sent for recycling. Where a business joins a takeback scheme, this information will be reported through the takeback scheme to the regulator. We estimate this will cover three quarters of filled fibre-based composite cups that are sold from the start of the obligation. We will review progress of the requirement and consider whether the obligation should be extended to all sellers of filled fibre-based composite cups.

We have taken note of the evidence provided by respondents on this subject and are now aware that consulting on introducing a charge on all single-use cups in all business sizes would generally be supported. Defra will consider next steps.

Additional items

Under the 25 Year Environment Plan, the government has committed to eliminating all avoidable plastic waste. We know there are other single-use plastic items that can cause harm to the environment, which is why we also asked whether there were any additional items for us to consider taking future policy action on.

One of the more prominent themes raised by respondents was that of single-use plastic packaging, particularly for food such as fruit and vegetables. A large number of responses specified polystyrene packaging as something they would like to see future action being taken on. Single-use plastic cutlery and plastic bottles were also commonly mentioned, as were single-use plastic toiletries, female sanitary items and nappies. Some of the more niche items mentioned included plastic balloons, toys, and different types of plastic bags, such as those used for cleaning up pet litter.

Regarding alternatives, a number of respondents commonly noted paper and card-based alternatives as well as bamboo and other wood-based materials. Many responses mentioned other biodegradable alternatives, such as biodegradable plastics. This was questioned by some however, stating that the term has no meaning regarding what happens at end of life. Others argued that these items are also single-use and interfere with recycling streams.

Many responses noted the need to cut overall resource use altogether and not look to other single-use, non-plastic materials, but instead reduce and reuse what we do have.

Government response

Regarding references to alternative materials/items, we agree that we need to move away from single-use consumption for all materials, not just plastics. So, we need to make sure that alternatives offer a better environmental outcome overall and do not simply shift the problem. Biodegradable plastics are also inherently single-use and do not contribute to a circular economy, so we will consider these factors when exploring future measures.

The government is already taking significant action on many of the items noted above, through a host of different policy mechanisms, including:

• the Plastic Packaging Tax, introduced in April 2022
• pEPR, which will place responsibility for the costs of dealing with packaging waste from households on producers, instead of local taxpayers and councils thereby applying the ‘polluter pays principle’ and encouraging producers to reduce their use of packaging and use packaging that is easier to recycle
• a Deposit Return Scheme for drinks containers, which will incentivise consumers to return their single-use drinks containers for recycling by placing a monetary deposit on each container at the point of purchase, which can be redeemed when the container is returned
• action on single-use plastic plates, bowls, trays cutlery, balloon sticks and expanded and extruded polystyrene food and drinks containers from October 2023 - read our response to the 2022 consultation.

We will continue to review the latest evidence on other problematic products and materials and take a systematic approach to reducing the use of unnecessary single-use plastic products. The information provided from the responses to this call for evidence will allow us to take stock and consider appropriate action.

Re-use and refill

In line with the waste hierarchy, we would like to see a shift away from single-use items to reusable or refillable alternatives. We know more work is needed to explore how to incentivise packaging reuse and refill in England and understand the barriers and how these could be overcome.

The main barriers identified by respondents to an increased use of re-useable and refillable alternatives were convenience, cost, hygiene, infrastructure, and education.

Convenience was mentioned in that it is easier for retailers to continue with business-as-usual and for consumers to purchase products in non-reusable or non-refillable packaging than to change their habits and return containers to be re-used.

A large number of respondents mentioned the additional cost that reusable and refillable alternatives pose, at all stages of the plastics supply chain. Members of the public may face higher prices for these items, while manufacturers and retailers need to adapt their systems and cover the cost of return and treatment (cleaning) of such items. This also related to comments from some on having the appropriate infrastructure in place to deal with these items, where currently there is a lack of capacity, for instance needing to introduce completely new equipment for handling and cleaning returned containers.

Hygiene was also raised as a potential barrier by many respondents. Responses noted that public concerns around hygiene and cleanliness of these schemes would need to be taken into careful consideration. In order to counter this, many noted the importance of education in changing behaviours.

Overcoming these barriers, many respondents noted that it would be beneficial to understand what would be gained from a refill and reuse scheme – for instance, utilising Life-Cycle Assessments to demonstrate the environmental benefits of shifting to reusable or refillable alternatives. A few noted that encouragement from or the adoption of policy measures by the government should only be undertaken once safe, workable systems are in place for retailers of all sizes. Retailers also voiced that incentivisation should be paired with behaviour change messaging. This was echoed by many that considered education would be vital for overcoming challenges when implementing reuse and refill schemes.

Some responses from public bodies deemed it important for reuse and refill to be part of the pEPR scheme. NGOs and members of the public also suggested that taxing all single-use plastics would be beneficial for the purposes of increasing the use of re-use and refill. From the retail side, loyalty schemes and information campaigns were noted as useful methods.

In relation to the final question, if the government should consult on regulating the provision of single-use products in eat-in settings, such as restaurants, 89% of respondents supported this proposal.

Government response

Reuse is key to securing our ambition of eliminating all avoidable plastic waste by 2042.

Government provides funding to WRAP, who run The UK Plastics Pact (UKPP). UKPP members cover the entire plastics value chain and are responsible for the majority of plastic packaging sold through British supermarkets, and approximately two thirds of the total plastic packaging placed on the UK market.

Through our funding and industry fees, WRAP is:

• providing one-to-one support for their Plastic Pact members working on refill and reuse pilots
• working with Pact members to help them complete at least one new trial on reusable packaging or a trial to encourage reuse behaviours by the end of 2022, with the aim to scale reuse by 2025
• sharing insights and learnings from reuse trials both in the UK and internationally.
• developing guidance to support industry in trialling and scaling reuse

As a result, members have opened refill stores, launched reusable and refillable packaging systems, encouraged customers to bring their own refill containers and cups.

We want to see greater use of reusable or refillable packaging which is why we have said we will do further work on measures to increase reuse and refill with the aim of introducing obligations on businesses from 2025 once the new arrangements for pEPR are in place. We have commenced this work by commissioning an international review of policy measures adopted by other countries to encourage the use of re-usable and refillable packaging. This is to help identify measures that may have relevance in a British context. In the meantime, the use of reusable packaging will be encouraged through pEPR, as producers will only be required to report the first time a reusable item is placed on the market and pay fees accordingly.

Next steps

The responses submitted to this call for evidence have provided us with a valuable evidence base to inform policy decisions going forward. As we continue to progress these and other initiatives, in line with the Resources and Waste Strategy, further stakeholder engagement may be undertaken. Thank you to all the respondents for their input.

Annex A: analysis of responses

Please note, the statistics below may not sum up to 100% due to rounding.

Table 1: Respondents by sector

Respondents	Count	Proportion
Member of the public	1,736	80%
Manufacturing industry	58	3%
Retail industry	44	2%
Public body	81	4%
NGO	87	4%
Other	145	7%
Not answered	22	1%
Total	2,173	100%

This table shows that 80% of respondents were members of the public, and 58 out of 2,173 responses came from the manufacturing industry.

Table 2: “Would you support a ban on wet wipes containing plastic?”

	Member of the public	Manufacturing industry	Retail industry	Public body	NGO	Other	Not Answered	Overall
No	1%	42%	5%	3%	6%	6%	5%	3%
Yes	98%	50%	92%	97%	92%	88%	91%	96%
Don’t Know	0%	8%	3%	0%	2%	6%	5%	1%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

This table shows that 42% of the manufacturing industry respondents would not support a ban on wet wipes containing plastic, and 3% of overall respondents would not support a ban on wet wipes containing plastic.

Table 3: “In the case of a ban on wet wipes containing plastic, would you support there being some exemptions for wipes used for medical purposes?”

	Overall
No	47%
Yes	34%
Don’t know	18%
Total	100%

This table shows that 47% of respondents would not support there being some exemptions for wipes used for medical purposes.

Table 4: “Are you aware of the water industry’s Fine to Flush standard?”

	Overall
No	49%
Yes	51%
Don’t Know	0%
Total	100%

This table shows that 49% of respondents were not aware of the water industry’s Fine to Flush standard.

Table 5: “Do you think the current water industry ‘Fine-to-Flush’ standard is effective in reducing sewer blockages caused by wet wipes?”

	Member of the public	Manufacturing industry	Retail industry	Public body	NGO	Other	Not Answered	Overall
No	56%	53%	63%	54%	64%	51%	50%	56%
Yes	2%	3%	3%	8%	9%	10%	0%	3%
Don’t Know	42%	44%	34%	38%	27%	39%	50%	41%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

This table shows that 56% of respondents from members of the public did not think the current water industry ‘Fine-to-Flush’ standard is effective in reducing sewer blockages caused by wet wipes.

Table 6: “Do you support a mandatory ‘flushability’ standard for wet wipe products placed on the market to indicate more clearly which wipe products are truly flushable?”

	Member of the public	Manufacturing industry	Retail industry	Public body	NGO	Other	Not Answered	Overall
No	21%	18%	18%	16%	28%	22%	32%	21%
Yes	72%	71%	82%	75%	68%	67%	68%	72%
Don’t Know	7%	12%	0%	9%	4%	12%	0%	7%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

This table shows that 21% of respondents from members of the public did not support a mandatory ‘flushability’ standard for wet wipe products placed on the market to indicate more clearly which wipe products are truly flushable.

Table 7: “Do you support mandatory labelling on packaging about disposal and the impact of wet wipe products on the environment?

	Overall
No	5%
Yes	93%
Don’t Know	2%
Total	100%

This table shows that 5% of respondents did not support mandatory labelling on packaging about disposal and the impact of wet wipe products on the environment.

Table 8: “Would you support an extended producer responsibility scheme for wet wipes containing plastic?”

	Member of the public	Manufacturing industry	Retail industry	Public body	NGO	Other	Not Answered	Overall
No	21%	29%	16%	13%	27%	19%	9%	21%
Yes	50%	37%	55%	61%	61%	53%	73%	51%
Don’t Know	29%	34%	29%	26%	12%	28%	18%	28%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

This table shows that 50% of responses from members of the public supported an EPR scheme for wet wipes containing plastic.

Table 9: “Do you support the government taking regulatory action to tackle littering of tobacco filters?”

	Member of the public	Manufacturing industry	Retail industry	Public body	NGO	Other	Not Answered	Overall
No	2%	17%	3%	1%	2%	2%	5%	3%
Yes	94%	70%	94%	96%	96%	96%	95%	94%
Don’t Know	4%	13%	3%	3%	1%	2%	0%	4%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

This table shows that 2% of respondents from members of the public did not support the government taking regulatory action to tackle littering of tobacco filters.

Table 10: “If the government takes forward an extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme to tackle cigarette littering, which of the following costs related to managing littered tobacco filters, if any, do you think should be covered by producers?”

As percentage of respondent type.

	Campaigns	Provision of bins	Clearing up ground litter and treatment	Data gathering and reporting	None	Other
Member of the public	87%	82%	77%	55%	2%	7%
Manufacturing industry	67%	54%	50%	50%	8%	25%
Retail industry	82%	82%	71%	53%	6%	9%
Public body	87%	84%	82%	70%	1%	8%
NGO	84%	81%	78%	69%	3%	21%
Other	84%	71%	71%	57%	3%	15%
Not answered	86%	67%	76%	62%	5%	14%
Overall	86%	81%	76%	56%	2%	9%

This table shows that 87% of respondents from members of the public supported the idea of cigarette producers covering the cost of campaigns.

Table 11: “Do you support consulting on introducing a ban on single-use plastic sachets used for:

1. Food and drink: stationary outlets including restaurants and cafes
2. Food and drink: mobile outlets including trains, airplanes, mobile food vendors
3. Beauty industry: providing free samples at the point of sale
4. Support all of the above
5. Do not support any of the above”

As percentage of respondent type.

	Permanent food and drink outlets	Mobile food and drink outlets	Beauty industry free samples or single use in multipacks	All of the above	None of the above
Member of the public	62%	58%	60%	88%	4%
Manufacturing industry	28%	21%	31%	48%	38%
Retail industry	47%	47%	44%	75%	17%
Public body	57%	53%	54%	83%	6%
NGO	59%	57%	55%	82%	7%
Other	57%	54%	56%	86%	8%
Not answered	53%	47%	53%	79%	5%
Overall	61%	57%	59%	86%	5%

This table shows that 62% of respondents from members of the public supported the idea of consulting on introducing a ban of single-use plastic sachets used for permanent food and drink outlets.

Table 12: “Would you support the government consulting on a proposal to introduce a charge for single-use cups?”

	Member of the public	Manufacturing industry	Retail industry	Public body	NGO	Other	Not Answered	Overall
No	10%	46%	18%	16%	9%	14%	10%	11%
Yes	87%	46%	79%	80%	88%	83%	80%	85%
Don’t Know	4%	7%	3%	4%	3%	3%	10%	4%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

This table shows that 10% of respondents from members of the public did not support the idea of consulting on a proposal to introduce a charge for single-use cups.

Table 13: “Do you think this charge should be for both hot and cold drinks?”

	Member of the public	Manufacturing industry	Retail industry	Public body	NGO	Other	Not Answered	Overall
No	5%	25%	16%	12%	5%	11%	15%	6%
Yes	91%	64%	82%	83%	91%	84%	80%	89%
Don’t Know	4%	11%	3%	5%	4%	5%	5%	4%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

This table shows that 5% of respondents from members of the public did not support a charge for both hot and cold drinks.

Table 14: “Do you think this charge should apply to businesses of all sizes?”

	Member of the public	Manufacturing industry	Retail industry	Public body	NGO	Other	Not Answered	Overall
No	6%	26%	13%	8%	8%	7%	25%	7%
Yes	88%	63%	84%	82%	84%	84%	65%	87%
Don’t Know	6%	11%	3%	9%	8%	8%	10%	6%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

This table shows that 6% of respondents from members of the public did not support a charge for businesses of all sizes.

Table 15: “Would you support the government consulting on regulating that restaurants cannot provide customers with any single-use products in eat-in settings? The existing exemption for straws would remain.”

	Member of the public	Manufacturing industry	Retail industry	Public body	NGO	Other	Not Answered	Overall
No	4%	42%	14%	4%	6%	11%	11%	5%
Yes	91%	42%	81%	92%	86%	82%	83%	89%
Don’t Know	5%	17%	5%	4%	8%	6%	6%	5%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

This table shows that 4% of respondents from members of the public would not support the government on regulating that restaurants cannot provide customers with any single-use products in eat in settings.