On 18 April 2013, the Government published a discussion paper which invited views on ideas for developing a more coherent regulatory approach across the different Producer Responsibility regimes. 75 responses were received by the closing date of 31 May 2013; 23 responses from Producer Compliance Schemes, 23 from producers, 14 from trade associations, 6 from treatment operators and reprocessors, 6 from advisory organisations and 3 from local authorities/other stakeholders. The UK„s four Producer Responsibility (PR) regimes originate from four separate EU Directives; namely the Packaging & Packaging Waste (94/62/EC), Waste Batteries & Accumulators (2006/66/EC), Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment (WEEE) (2012/19/EU), and End of Life Vehicles (ELV) (2000/53/EC) Directives. Each Directive applies the principle of Producer Responsibility to a specific product category. The PR regimes share a common financial obligation for producers to bear the costs of collecting, treating and recycling/recovering a proportion of their products to meet legal targets and minimum standards. They also have similar administrative processes such as producer registration, approval of compliance schemes and the authorisation of treatment facilities and exporters. However, there are also significant differences between the regimes. Some differences are due to different products and markets or differences in EU Directives, but others are the result of policy being developed at different times. This has led to criticism, particularly from those businesses which have to comply with more than one producer responsibility regime. Government agrees that the way in which these regimes work could be improved, maximising their overall effectiveness and reducing administrative burdens on businesses. In line with the Government„s Red Tape Challenge and as part of a continuous commitment to improve regulation, Defra and BIS have been reviewing all Producer Responsibility regimes to explore opportunities to develop a greater degree of coherence across the regimes. The discussion paper explored a total of 21 proposals for improving coherence, seeking views on the level of support for each proposal and how they could be improved. Whilst not specifically included in the proposals, the discussion paper invited any comments on any suggested improvements to the ELV regime. Two responses were received specifically regarding ELV and these have been passed to the responsible team for consideration.