The Conservative Party has proposed abolishing the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England as separate arm’s-length bodies, transferring their functions into the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). It has also proposed scrapping the UK’s extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme, commonly known as packaging EPR or pEPR.
The announcement, reported on 5 October 2026, is a party policy proposal rather than a change in law. The Conservatives are currently in opposition, so the proposals have no immediate effect on environmental permits, planning conditions, waste controls, producer reporting or packaging-fee liabilities. Businesses should continue to comply with the rules currently in force and work to the deadlines set out in their permits, notices and regulatory correspondence.
What is being proposed?
The proposal would remove the EA and Natural England as distinct public bodies and move their functions into Defra. In England, the EA has major operational responsibilities for regulating industry and waste, water quality and resources, contaminated-land treatment, and flood risk from main rivers, reservoirs, estuaries and the sea. It also administers and enforces a wide range of environmental permitting and compliance functions.
That means a structural change of this scale would not simply affect one approval route or one sector. It could ultimately affect regulated facilities, landfill and waste operators, water companies, industrial sites, developers with flood or biodiversity constraints, landowners, and organisations holding or applying for environmental permits. Nevertheless, there is no present proposal before Parliament that changes the validity of EA-issued permits or transfers regulatory decision-making today.
The packaging element is more immediate in commercial planning terms. The Conservative Party has said it would scrap pEPR, the regime designed to transfer the cost of managing household packaging waste from local authorities and taxpayers to businesses that place obligated packaging on the market.
Current pEPR obligations remain in place
pEPR is underpinned by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024 and is being administered by PackUK across the four UK nations. Liable large producers must still submit accurate packaging data, respond to regulator queries and pay waste-disposal fees stated in their notices of liability.
For the 2026 to 2027 assessment year, PackUK is operating the second year of the scheme. Its operational plan forecasts around £1.47 billion of chargeable local-authority disposal costs and total fee recovery of approximately £1.56 billion once administration and impairment costs are included. The plan also provides for eco-modulated fees, intended to differentiate charges according to the recyclability of packaging.
PackUK intends to issue initial year-two notices of liability by the end of November 2026. Businesses should not defer data-quality work, budget provisions or payment preparation because of an opposition-policy announcement. A notice of liability is a statutory liability, and non-payment can lead to interest and enforcement action. Current guidance says payment is generally made in quarterly instalments on the dates shown in the notice.
Who should pay attention?
- Packaging producers and importers: maintain reporting controls, evidence trails, recyclability assessments and financial provision for current and future notices of liability.
- Retailers, brand owners and contract packers: review contractual allocation of pEPR costs and ensure packaging specifications can be traced to reliable material and weight data.
- Waste-management businesses and local authorities: consider the implications for medium-term collection, sorting, treatment and recycling investment, as pEPR payments are a material part of current funding assumptions.
- Permit holders and applicants: continue dealing with the EA as the relevant regulator. Permit applications, compliance assessments, variations, remediation work and enforcement matters remain subject to the existing framework.
- Developers and infrastructure promoters: monitor the policy discussion, particularly where programmes rely on EA flood-risk engagement, environmental permitting, Natural England advice or protected-site assessments.
Practical implications for investment decisions
The principal near-term effect is increased political and regulatory uncertainty, not deregulation. A future government seeking to implement these proposals would need legislation, a transition plan, funding arrangements and clear provisions for staff, data, permits, enforcement powers, appeals and live applications. The outcome could range from an administrative transfer that broadly preserves existing standards to wider reform of regulatory duties and processes. It is too early to assume either outcome.
For packaging businesses, the prospect of pEPR being repealed creates a tension in long-range business cases. Investment in recyclable packaging, data systems and collection infrastructure is being made against the current system, including fee modulation. Yet the scheme remains legally operative, and its financial and reporting requirements cannot be treated as optional while it is in force.
Organisations should therefore separate current compliance from future scenario planning. Compliance teams should continue to meet live legal duties. Boards and investment committees can, in parallel, test exposure to possible changes in fees, regulatory timetables, enforcement arrangements and local-authority funding.
What organisations should consider next
- Keep pEPR data submissions, fee forecasting and evidence controls on schedule, including preparations for the expected November 2026 notices of liability.
- Do not pause permit, planning or environmental-compliance activity on the assumption that the EA’s functions will change.
- Identify contracts, funding agreements and business cases that depend on pEPR revenues, environmental permits, EA engagement or Natural England input.
- Prepare proportionate policy scenarios for a future change of government, distinguishing a departmental reorganisation from substantive changes to environmental law.
- Monitor formal party publications, consultations, Bills and government announcements rather than relying on conference reporting alone.
For now, the practical message is straightforward: the proposal is important political-risk context, but it does not displace existing environmental law. Regulated organisations should continue to act on the current statutory framework while documenting where a future change in institutional structure or packaging policy could materially affect cost, programme or investment exposure.