Aphra Brandreth MP: speeches

Speeches

• 6 Jul 2026 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  We recognise that the current system for regulating those who transport and control waste needs to be updated to ensure the waste sector has a regulatory framework that delivers the safe and responsible management of waste and reduces opportunities for criminal activity without being unduly burdensome to businesses in the sector. The impacts of waste crime are significant, causing damage to our environment and natural habitats and imposing a cost to the taxpayer of nearly £1 billion per year. It undercuts legitimate businesses and undermines public confidence. I am pleased that the Government are attempting to tackle waste crime at source through this SI, but I have some concerns as to how it will be implemented and function, which I will address shortly. Before I come to that, I note that the responses to the consultation were broadly supportive of the proposal to move from registration to permitting, as this SI outlines, with 73% of respondents agreeing that the current waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime should be brought under environmental permitting regulations. The concept of proportionate regulation, in which higher-risk activities receive greater scrutiny while genuinely low-risk operators can benefit from exemptions, is one that makes sense and that we would support in principle. However, recognising the need for reform does not mean burdening legitimate businesses with ever-increasing costs. I want to raise some concerns with the Minister in a constructive manner, in the hope that she can reassure the House that the Government have struck the right balance between stronger regulation and the burdens being placed on businesses already under considerable pressure by the costs and consequences of other policies brought forward by this Government. Over the appraisal period, businesses will face almost £187 million in permit fees, more than £50 million in familiarisation costs, significant application and audit costs, and well over £190 million in additional training and technical competence requirements. The Government are banking on the fact that those costs, which are very significant, will be outweighed by the benefits of reductions in waste crime and of creating a fairer marketplace for legitimate operators. However, as the Minister will know, the impact assessment showed an overall negative net present value from this policy of £340 million over the appraisal period. That is substantial. Even given the potential for a conservative estimate of reduced waste crime and other potential non-monetised benefits and wider social benefits, there is significant uncertainty. In the current economic climate, will the Minister reassure us that there will be appropriate monitoring and evaluation to ensure that the significant costs for businesses do not escalate further and to check that the benefits are fully realised? In particular, how will the Government monitor the cumulative impact of these new requirements on smaller operators? We all want to drive criminals out of the sector, but we must ensure that we do not inadvertently make life disproportionately harder for responsible businesses. Businesses are already dealing with the consequences of this Government’s policies, from the jobs tax to increased costs and ever more burdensome regulations. Against that backdrop, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether businesses have been given sufficient time, support and clarity to prepare for these significant changes to the waste sector. Will the Minister provide further detail on the guidance that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency intend to publish ahead of commencement? What assurances can she give about the resources in place so that any permit applications will be responded to and actioned promptly? While we welcome the intention to strengthen enforcement, what confidence can the Minister give the House that enforcement activity will be genuinely targeted at rogue operators, rather than becoming an additional bureaucratic burden on compliant firms? Finally, the Government intend to evaluate these reforms through the wider resources and waste policy programme, with reporting due in 2029. Given the scale of these changes and the costs involved, will the Minister commit to providing Parliament with earlier updates on implementation, compliance costs and whether the anticipated reductions in waste crime are actually being achieved? Given the Government’s familiarity with U-turns, we may need to revisit this SI sooner rather than later if it is failing to work for the sector. If this SI is implemented well, it should protect the environment while enabling responsible businesses to thrive. We support the objective of modernising an outdated regime and strengthening action against waste crime, but we also believe Ministers must recognise the cumulative pressures facing businesses and ensure implementation is carefully managed. It is in that constructive spirit that we will continue to scrutinise the implementation of these regulations, holding the Government to account to ensure these reforms deliver the environmental benefits that Ministers promise without imposing unnecessary burdens on the businesses that are working hard to comply with the law.