Mary Creagh MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 6 Jul 2026 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief and try not to detain the House for too long, but what a rich and insightful debate we have had. Let me begin by addressing the question of costs, which was raised by the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), who speaks for the Conservative party. Legitimate waste businesses are highly supportive of these regulations, as they raise standards and level the playing field across the industry. There is a tiered approach to the new permitting regime, which will ensure that those carrying large amounts of the most at-risk types of waste will be distinctly identified and charged accordingly. If we do the maths—I stopped doing maths when I finished O-levels, which was quite a long time ago—we are providing £186 million over the 11-year appraisal period, which will be offset against businesses incurring costs from increased tax. In other words, they will be brought into compliance and begin paying tax—£183 million. So yes, they will have to pay more. The ones that do not pay anything at the moment are going to be paying their tax. One of the reasons they have moved into this space is that they can take mixed household waste and charge people £125 for landfill, then move it on to somewhere else and say, “It’s only soil.” They are making £120 profit on every tonne that they take. Let us do the maths: if we have 300,000 tonnes here and 100,000 tonnes there, pretty soon we are talking about tens of millions of pounds from one illegitimate landfill site. I am not crying any tears about that and I think that, outside this place, our constituents will be cheering and clapping. As I have said, legitimate companies know that they are being undercut by the rogues and the criminals—and why should they not have to learn how to do this? We have heard about vapes, industrial waste and all sorts of stuff turning up in landfill sites, and at the moment we are saying that it is absolutely fine—that anyone with a pair of gloves and a van can just come along and take the waste. No, that was the old way. We want to protect the environment and protect people as well, and we are also interested in protecting businesses. The impact assessment for the regulations says that businesses will “benefit from reduced waste crime”, to the tune of £159 million, so I hope that most businesses will be better off. There are exemptions for charities, but we do not exempt small businesses and microbusinesses from complying based on their size; we have heard about all the small businesses and microbusinesses in this space, and exempting them would undermine the policy and our risk-based approach. Some of these businesses pose a significant waste crime risk, so we will be rolling this out. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury asked about monitoring and review. We have an independent resources and waste policy programme evaluation, which will assess the impact of the major reforms that we are bringing in. That will report in March 2029, but as with anything, if stuff is not working, we will listen and take action. I turn to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett). I know his neck of the woods very well, having served as one of the four MPs for Wakefield until 2019, and he is right to say that our constituents have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home. I was really saddened by the story of his constituent who was unable to celebrate his birthday with his family in his own home because he was ashamed of where he lived. I was also saddened to hear of constituents waking up with migraines and tasting the smell, and of kids feeling sick at school. It is absolutely disgusting. Mineral processing at the site has significantly exceeded its permitted waste volumes, which has resulted in approximately 320,000 tonnes of misdescribed inert waste containing biodegradable fines—the little bits that are chipped down. The site permit has been revoked but the waste remains, and we have heard the persistent and worsening concerns about the odour. We have had warmer weather recently, and there were 18 reports over 24 hours on 24 and 25 June. There is increasingly dissatisfaction with the persistent impact, so the EA is monitoring the site, and it has installed an additional air quality and odour monitoring facility to provide further data. The EA is carrying out proactive odour monitoring in the area, requiring the operator to submit an odour management plan to address odour pollution. It is studying air quality impacts by using mobile monitoring facilities installed in the area and handheld gas analysers, and it is continuing to inspect the site and record permit breaches when it finds them. The EA is also monitoring the water quality in Frickley beck, because we do not want persistent and potentially organic pollutants to end up in our water supply, only for taxpayers and bill payers to be responsible for the clean-up further down the river. We are acting on intelligence received about vehicle movements at the site and are working closely with partners, including colleagues at the UK Health Security Agency and Wakefield council. The site permit has been revoked, and the site is no longer operational. Members have asked questions about how we prosecute people for the misdescription of waste. The first thing we have to do is bring them into this regime, so that we are not reacting when there has been an accidental overloading and breach of permit conditions—I do not want to say it is a crime, because I would not want to prejudge anything. I have had a long and very interesting conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) about the issue of the landfill gases at the Seletia sites at Hespin Wood and Flusco. As I say, these are horrible gases, and it too, with the same model, has breached the permitted waste, with massive over-dumping at those sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) told the story of his constituent, who was aghast at being dragged into this, and potentially criminalised by an innocent act of trying to do the right thing and get her waste dealt with properly. I thank everyone for their valuable contributions to the debate. I have issued statutory guidance to councils on how to use their powers to seize and crush vehicles, because we are aware that, although they have the powers, they may not feel confident about using them. We are also working with CrimeStoppers to get the public to be part of the army of people tackling waste crime. If people do see something suspicious, I would ask them please to report it on 0800 555 111—I say that from memory, but I think it is the correct number. These regulations are vital if we are to tackle waste crime. This change is long overdue for those moving and controlling waste. I thank all my departmental officials in the Box—James Cruddas, David Read and Freya Ballard—and Leena Hardy from my private office. The regulations are widely supported by our stakeholders and highly anticipated by our constituents. I thank all those working at the Environment Agency and in police forces across the country on tackling waste criminals and this new form of organised crime. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That the draft Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 20 May, be approved.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the draft Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 20 May, be approved. It is a pleasure to be here on this hot and sultry evening. Despite our late nights or early mornings—whatever we decided to do in order to get over the football—I hope I can entertain the House with this vital piece of new legislation. I would like to acknowledge the important work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its review of this statutory instrument. Its scrutiny is a vital part of our legislative process, ensuring that the policy intentions behind our secondary legislation are clear and well founded. As Members across the House will know from their inboxes and will have seen for themselves, waste crime blights our constituencies. Criminals who dump waste illegally in our streets, our fields and our woodlands show contempt for our communities and for us, creating eyesores that damage our environment. Under the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, a light-touch registration system was set up for those who transport and deal in waste. It has remained pretty much untouched since then. As a result, it has been exploited by waste criminals, leaving the public with a huge clean-up bill. Enforcement, sadly, is only reactive. The system is not fit for purpose, with anyone or anything—a dead dog called Oscar, a fish, or even a cow called Beau Vine—being able to register on the system. That stops today. This Labour Government are scrapping the broken waste system that the Conservatives left behind. Today we are introducing stricter checks and requirements, closing the loopholes long exploited by illegal operators, and the objective of this Government’s waste crime action plan, published in March, is to stop waste crime at its source and to bring pride back to our communities. We are cracking down on the waste criminals, dragging the regime into the modern age and improving waste traceability. These regulations bring those in England who control and transport waste within the scope of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. They repeal the current carriers, brokers and dealers registration, which is now over: finished, kaput, no more. These regulations introduce tougher checks for waste controllers and transporters. Permitting will now be required for those who control and transport waste, bringing the system in line with site-based waste activities. Those who apply for permits will undergo strict background checks, including tax checks, identity checks and criminal records checks. They will need to demonstrate that they are technically competent to do the job. The Environment Agency will be responsible for managing applications for, and ensuring compliance with, this new permitting system. The fees introduced for permits will also mean that the Environment Agency will be effectively resourced for its compliance work.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  We need to take action at every level. For example, the person who does a weekend job for their friend, transporting half a skip of old kitchen waste that suddenly ends up on a lay-by, in a farmer’s field or blocking a lane, will now face up to nine penalty points on their licence; that should make them think twice before doing that job for their friend. They may only be on the periphery of the criminality, but in order to stop it, we have to look right the way along the chain. Anecdotally, I often hear that when these small-time crooks are apprehended, they are only too pleased to pay the fixed penalty notices to the council and to be let away with it, because they can be the front end of a much, much larger serious and organised crime group. So what does this all mean? The Environment Agency is finally going to be effectively resourced to undertake the compliance work. The move to permitting means that the agency can suspend and ultimate revoke permits where conditions are breached. It can also prosecute, and those found guilty will face fines or up to five years’ imprisonment. The regulations will mean that the public should have more trust in the people they hand their waste to. We will require waste controllers and transporters to include their permit number on advertising, whether that is a Facebook ad or a branded van.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman tempts me, but it is a bit too early to say. These prosecutions often take a long time to piece together. We have all seen the pattern where a company goes bust, owing HMRC a vast amount of money—sometimes in the tens of millions of pounds. I do not want to get into saying, “One, three, five or seven,” and setting out those targets; I do not think we are at a stage to talk about that. However, I can reassure the House that my risk appetite for not granting permits to people who may be questionable is very high, and I am very happy to be taken to court by people who think they may have unjustly been denied a waste permit. So far, there have been no cases against us or the Environment Agency for refusing a licence. We are tightening up all the way along the system, but I do not want to get into metrics. We know the sites where we have problems and we see new ones appearing, and the thing is to stop the proliferation of those sites, many of which are simply illegal and are not permitted in any way, shape or form. That is where our difficulty comes in.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I am responsible for many things, from forests and international biodiversity to peat and trees; I am afraid the courts are slightly outwith my jurisdiction, but I will pass that point on. We are working with our colleagues on issues around sentencing. On the metrics, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) knows, as a former Environment Secretary, that we have a risk-based, intelligence-led approach that directs the greatest effort towards the highest harm illegal operators. By strengthening the regulatory framework and their abilities, alongside these reforms, we are providing those in the joint unit for waste crime, who are responsible for tackling it, with the tools that they need to stamp it out. I was very disappointed to read The Times ’s leader today on fly-tipping; I thought it was a little unfair. This Government have doubled the Environmental Agency’s waste crime enforcement budget by committing an additional £45 million over the next three financial years. I believe the budget in 2024-25 was £10 million. We have added £5 million on this year, and then we will add an extra £15 million. Essentially doubling that budget means more boots on the ground and more drones in the air to expand enforcement activities and track down waste criminals. Since March, I believe we have had 18 waste crime prosecutions. I acknowledge the strength of support in the legitimate waste industry for this reform, and its patience over the years as that reform has been developed under the watch of the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire and others. These regulations are a significant change. They level the playing field for all operators and will protect communities and the environment from waste criminals. As I said, this is a really important part of our plan to stop waste crime. These regulations also bring the Environment Act 2021 within the scope of the primary authority scheme by adding it to schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. For those unfamiliar with it, the primary authority scheme allows businesses with operations in more than one area to work with a single local authority that provides consistent, tailored advice on meeting their legal obligations, which can cover areas such as environmental health, trading standards and fire safety. Extending the scheme to include the Environment Act is important, because it will enable primary authorities to support retailers in understanding and meeting their responsibilities under the forthcoming deposit return scheme, which launches next year. That will help to ensure a more consistent and effective approach across the country. I recommend this statutory instrument to the House.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. We are acutely conscious of the issue that farmers face. There is innovative work being done with drones, and I met one farmer who told me that his neighbour turned up with a tractor to block the lane as the criminals were trying to make their exit; they caught them in a trap and then called the police. That was a happy outcome in Hertfordshire, but we cannot have eyes on the ground in every field and back lane, so we are working with insurers to see what we can do to ensure that this type of crime is properly covered under farmers’ business insurance. The regulations will mean that the public should have more trust in the people to whom they hand their waste. The public will be able to look up operators and ensure they have a valid permit. This reform is one of a number outlined in the waste crime action plan. It is nothing new: it was first announced eight years ago by the Conservative party, in the 2018 resource and waste strategy. It was consulted on back in 2022 and the Government gave their response in 2023, but it is this Government that have delivered it. We have introduced digital waste tracking, replacing outdated paper-based methods for monitoring waste movements. We will be tightening the waste permit exemption system by getting rid of exemptions abused by those dealing with end-of-life vehicles, tyres and scrap metal. We will be enabling the Environment Agency to tighten up on exemptions abused in other parts of the waste sector, including the use of waste in construction, preparatory treatments, the treatment of waste wood, manual treatment, burning of vegetation at the place of production, storage in containers and storage in a secure place. Taken together, these measures strengthen the regulatory framework and the Environment Agency’s ability to prevent, detect and tackle waste criminals.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We inherited a bit of a “pass the parcel” system: “Who is the landowner? Who is the local authority? What is the size of the dump? Is it permitted or not?” That means that waste criminals can fall between the cracks and that there is effectively impunity. We have introduced a digital waste system, but under the current system, enforcement can only be reactive, not proactive. For that reason, we are introducing identity checks, to find out the answers to questions like, “Does this person actually exist, or is it a dog or a cow?”, “Do they have a criminal record?” and “Are they fit and competent to manage the waste?” All those things matter. As my hon. Friend described, we are talking about dangerous materials. We do not want to see them piled high and not moved on, and then, sadly, a fire coming along—whether deliberate or accidental. In all these environmental crimes, including dumping and burning, the profits are privatised, but the costs, and the social and environmental consequences, are socialised.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  Under the current system, checking the paperwork is all that the Environment Agency can do; that is the problem. Under the managing public money rules, the Environment Agency is not funded by legitimate operators to go and seek out criminals. We consulted on that during discussions about digital waste tracking. There is an issue with saying to legitimate operators, “We will add a tenner on to your licence so that we can go after the criminals”, because that is not allowed under Treasury rules. There is a chicken-and-egg situation, and I have heard the same anecdotes as the hon. Member. The bottom line is that if someone is controlling or transporting waste, they should be registered, the registration should be clear for all to see, and we should be able to check that they are a true person on the system and that there is nothing in their background that would make us hesitate about whether to issue a licence. To come back to the issue of a multi-agency response, we have an action plan and we are working with the Environment Agency, the national lead for waste crime, alongside His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is going after the tax, the Home Office, which is covering the issue of vulnerable workers and exploitation, local police forces and local authorities. We are undertaking co-ordinated cross-Government action. We will monitor the effectiveness and improve metrics so that we get a much better multi-agency waste crime response.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The idea that we can send Environment Agency officials to deal—in some cases—with serious organised crime groups is simply for the birds. People say, “There aren’t prosecutions” or “The penalties are too light”, but the waste is often one part of a multifaceted criminal enterprise—it is just another wing of a business empire. We need to get better at looking upstream, looking at tax checks and looking at the web of companies behind the business, and basically doing the Al Capone method—getting them on tax evasion—and prosecuting them under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. There is a wider point here: we cannot expect council officials who have been denuded and stripped of funds over the last 14 years to suddenly become waste crime enforcers. There may be only one or two trading standards and compliance officers in post in a local council, but this sort of sophisticated crime requires a lot of multi-agency work. Someone from the National Police Chiefs’ Council is now tasked with doing that work; we are doing a review, particularly of local authority competence in this area.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and this is something that I have been insistent with officials on. This is a complex scheme, and the more complexity we add into it, the more time it will take. There is a trade-off here, and a set of difficulties, because we can do carve-outs for x and y sector, but that creates more complexity in the recycling assessment methodology calculations for other parts of the packaging industry. We have to beware of making perfection the enemy of the good. I can also let my hon. Friend know that the chief executive officer of PackUK, Jeremy Blake, met the WoolCool CEO yesterday. I thought that had happened, but I am glad to have got the note telling me it is true. Beyond this, we are supporting the glass businesses with their electricity costs through the British industry supercharger. Glass businesses now receive 90% compensation for electricity network charges. This brings their total reduction in electricity bills to an average of between £65 and £87 per megawatt-hour. We are also supporting the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors with lower tax rates for their properties. On the issue around cheaper imports coming from overseas, the Trade Remedies Authority’s independent anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations into cheaper glass imports from China and Turkey are ongoing. That is dealt with by another Government Department. We are working closely with industry to address the challenge of dual use—packaging disposed of in either business or household waste streams. We know how important this issue is to stakeholders across different sectors, including pubs, hospitality and medical packaging businesses, and construction. Indeed, I met a representative of the paint industry at a B&Q in my Coventry East constituency. Paint will always come in a tin or plastic container with a coating inside it, so it will never attract “green” fees, but we want to get that paint recycled, reused or repurposed. B&Q is doing some excellent work with the charity Neighbourly to ensure that paint has a second life. People do not know what to do with unused paint. Builders finish using a pot, then down into the drain the rest goes, adding to the diffuse water pollution that we are experiencing across our sewer network. This is a tricky issue, but we need a system that can be effectively monitored and enforced. It is no good just saying, “Oh, everyone decides that all their stuff goes to the pubs” and then suddenly we are left with a massive shortfall in the fees, so it has to be verifiable. We are testing solutions, including for hospitality, and building on international best practice, looking in particular at the Austrian model. I held a roundtable with industry last year to look at solutions for the dual-use challenge. It is difficult, but I hope for a solution on this issue soon that does not add undue complexity to the scheme or make it impossible for the regulator to verify.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously, I do not sit there and do the maths with people. These suggestions and potential solutions have to be modelled and worked through. We are working at pace to assess whether any targeted short-term measures could be introduced through the forthcoming PEPR amending statutory instrument to partially address the dual-use packaging issue. So we are working on a short-term solution, but we are also working on a longer-term solution, which is the Austrian model that I mentioned. Again, the hon. Gentleman may have been distracted by the whistle when I mentioned that. Councils across the country are rebranding and upgrading their glass recycling points to make it easier for households to use glass recycling facilities and to reduce the contamination that we know is so important to avoid in glassmaking. We have made a £5.3 million investment in that over a couple of years, and those changes are happening on the ground. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, reuse is not a short-term fix. It was once the norm when a lot of us—perhaps not all hon. Members present in the Chamber—were growing up, and it can be again. In some ways the future looks like the past—let us hope that is not the case for the England game. PEPR creates a powerful financial incentive for glass producers to move to reuse. Running reuse schemes means producers avoid most PEPR fee obligations, and glass, as we have heard, is a durable, tried and tested technology. While it requires up-front investment and system change, it shifts costs away from single-use production and disposal, it improves supply chain resilience and reduces costs over time. Reuse is already operating at scale internationally, particularly for glass. Reusing a glass bottle just five times can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by more than a third. The more times they are reused, the greater the benefits will be. As we have heard today, the issue is not just about the environment; it is also about jobs, communities and the long-term health of British industry. The industry estimates that these reforms will create 25,000 jobs and underpin £10 billion of investment in new sorting and processing facilities. The reforms will drive that improvement in our recycling rate and, crucially, they will reduce our carbon emissions. In conclusion, glass matters, industry matters and glassworkers matter. This Government back businesses and workers, and we back the transition to a circular economy that makes the country stronger, cleaner and more resilient. Change is coming to EPR and I reassure all hon. Members that we want to have a predictable, well set out framework within which business can confidently operate and householders can confidently know that what they put in their recycling streams is going to have a second, and hopefully third and fourth, life. Question put and agreed to.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I want to make a little bit of progress, if I may, because it is four minutes to kick-off.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak on this issue today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. We have heard from powerful advocates for the glass industry, the fibre-based composites industry, the ceramics industry, the wine industry in Cornwall and, of course, the beer and pub industry, which we are all hoping to go and enjoy shortly. Let me begin by also declaring my interest as a member of the GMB trade union. I recognise the challenging context in which the glass industry operates; that is a result of a range of global pressures, including the international increases in energy costs, volatile commodity prices, growing international competition, and substantial investment in decarbonising energy-intensive manufacturing processes. I also recognise and acknowledge the industry’s concerns about packaging extended producer responsibility, or PEPR, which is an internationally recognised model used in more than 30 countries to transform recycling services. The model shifts the cost of managing packaging waste from taxpayers—that is us—to the producers who put it on the market. It is the “polluter pays” principle in action. Its introduction in this country is the biggest change to recycling policy in 25 years. The policy was formulated under the previous Conservative Government. The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) is no longer in his place, but it was his Government who first began developing it back in 2018-19. There was a debate on it on the Floor of the House, in which he did not register his objections, and he did not vote against it. Perhaps he was absent, or chatting to his new friends in a different party. Since PEPR has been brought in, the money raised from packaging producers and retailers has gone directly to councils to fund the introduction of simpler recycling—the new recycling collections that we have. That does not include the food waste collections, although they are part of simpler recycling. Last year, PEPR raised over £1.4 billion for local authorities to deliver better recycling services for people in every nation of the UK. Our goal is to get from 45% recycled—that is where we have stagnated over the last decade—to 65% recycled by 2035. That is an important goal. The food waste collections—they are not paid for through PEPR—are part of the simpler recycling reforms and a really important part of taking the methane out of our bins. Let me come to glass fees. Last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham rightly said, year 1 PEPR fees took account only of the weight and volume of materials. That reflected the cost to local authorities of collecting and disposing of the materials. Following her excellent Westminster Hall debate last year, we have worked at pace, and I am pleased to tell hon. Members that from this year—year 2—we are bringing in lower fees for more recyclable packaging. Our latest data shows that more than 93% of glass will receive a “green” discount for being recyclable. This means that producers of harder-to-recycle “red” materials, such as crisp packets, will pay a premium. The system is designed to reward the right choices. The incentive to make the right choices will increase, because in years 3 and 4, producers of “red” materials—the more complex forms of packaging—will pay even higher fee rates than those do who use more recyclable, “green” materials, like glass. The forecasts that I have seen expect the glass sector to pay a decreasing share of PEPR costs in years 2 and 3. In year 4, that will fall even further, as the penalty for “red” packaging will reach double the basic “green” rate.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I want to make some progress, and my hon. Friend may find that I answer her questions. PackUK has today published improved guidance on how recyclability will be assessed and rewarded. The glass section was developed in close collaboration with the glass industry and we have already received positive feedback. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said about wool. When I see wool used as a coolant, it tends to come in plastic packaging, for hygiene reasons. That packaging can certainly be open up, and the wool can then be composted, but there is usually a film around it, and under the recyclability assessment methodology, that would incur higher fees. All this is meant to incentivise design for recyclability. I was due to meet a wool insulation provider this week. Sadly, I was not able to, but she was on her way down, and I believe that she met officials. I will check that later. I am keen to do work on this issue, because it is particularly important for the British wool industry, with wool at such rock-bottom prices. We are planning to launch a call for evidence this year to gather industry views, which will inform how we continue to reward the right choices. On the post-implementation review, it will be conducted and published in the normal way, three years after the regulations came in. That is slated for December 2028.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  Again, we have a complex system. I would very much like to give my hon. Friend the amounts per tonne, but that is not possible, much though I would like to give her comfort, until all packaging producers have reported their data in the autumn. We will then issue the invoices. I can say that the proportion that the glass sector will pay will fall year on year. We have been listening very carefully to the glass industry on that issue. PackUK, the scheme administrator, and officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs meet the glass sector and British Glass regularly, and PackUK ran a workshop just this week, which included British Glass, on how we can drive the use of more recyclable materials. Everything that PackUK does is subject to four-nation agreement. We had a meeting this morning with the devolved Governments, at which we talked through some of the issues. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland face very different challenges, and the challenges of collecting in inner-city London are not comparable to those of collecting waste in the Outer Hebrides. The model is therefore complex from the recycling and collections point of view as well. Returning to glass, PackUK and DEFRA officials will visit Ardagh Glass later this month. The visit was due to take place in June, but it was rescheduled at Ardagh’s request. PackUK also visited Encirc in Northern Ireland last month. I have spoken to the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) about the issue around the reduction in energy fees, but those do not apply in Northern Ireland. That is another—well, we could talk about Brexit, but perhaps we will not intrude on that private pain. May I also say that since we debated glass fees last year, DEFRA officials have visited five of the six major glass manufacturers in the UK to hear from them directly, and that includes Beatson Clark? We are acting on their concerns. Also, we have investment in the glass industry in this country; we have a new electric glass factory at Verallia in Leeds.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I am looking to my officials in the Box, and I think it is probably safest if I write to my hon. Friend on that issue. Let me tell the House about the year 1 shortfall in fees. There was a shortfall in the fees this year as we allowed packaging producers to submit their tonnages and then their tonnages reduced because, obviously, they looked at their figures and reduced them. We listened to industry on that. Despite the regulations saying that actually industry should make up any shortfall, my Department took pressure off businesses by funding on an exceptional basis to hold fees down. We are taking steps this year to ensure that we do not have a repeat of that. On early successes, we are hearing about PEPR bringing about change. Councils all over the UK are using this funding from the packaging industry to improve services to local people. In Tameside, the metropolitan council is investing £1.6 million in new vehicles and improved technology to deliver a more reliable service for taxpayers. Councils are investing to improve glass collection directly, which should benefit the industry in terms of the supply of high-quality cullet. For example, Aberdeenshire council is investing £5 million over 2 years to purchase a new three-compartment glass collection vehicle—I hope that is “vehicles”, but it says “vehicle” here—upgrading glass recycling points to reduce contamination, and improving the quality of glass recyclate, which we know really matters to the glass industry.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  A try!

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot speak for what happened under the previous Administration, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the scheme was announced in 2018, and a consultation happened in 2019. There was another consultation, but I cannot find the exact part of my pack on that. There was a full impact assessment of PEPR published in October 2020, setting out the expected overall costs to businesses. At that stage, it was not possible to assess the impact on specific sectors or regions, as fees and modulation had not been finalised. This has been a huge infrastructure project change, and a huge system change. The Environment Agency, acting as the regulator, holds the database of everyone who is a packaging producer. Elsewhere in the waste and packaging sector, we see large issues around avoidance, free riding and other issues, so we had to go through a massive piece of work with our regulator to ensure that everyone who is putting packaging on is meeting their obligations. There were public consultations in 2019 and 202,1 and a consultation on draft regulations in 2023. There was a consultation with British Glass on the decision to use volume in the apportionment of kerbside recycling collection costs in July 2024, prior to the release of the initial set of illustrative base fees. I think that there was perhaps a misunderstanding, given that this had all been thought about and discussed for five or six years, that it was never going to happen. To be fair to the smaller companies, perhaps they were unaware of their obligations, or perhaps they were not obligated at that time, but have since grown and been brought over the de minimis threshold. Let me talk a little bit more about what the Government are doing more widely to support glass businesses with their electricity costs.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Fly-tipping: Residential Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this very well attended debate. Let me also thank hon. Members from across the House who have made valuable points. It is great to hear from the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople about everything that this Government need to do, but it was under the coalition Government and their cuts that the beginnings of this public squalor occurred. In the so-called big society of David Cameron, we did not realise we were all going to have to become litter-picking Womble troops, set up our own food banks to feed our communities and end up being lollipop crossing wardens as well, because of the severe cuts that happened to local government on the coalition Government’s watch. It is fitting that we are having this debate at the beginning of London Climate Action Week. Everybody’s environment starts at their front door—it is not something out there in the oceans and forests; it is about stuff that is literally in the streets where we live. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) said, this is a matter of social justice. It is about environmental justice, but also about the poorest people bearing the consequences of environmental crime. It is an epidemic that proliferated under the coalition and it became a pandemic from 2015. The failure to implement any new policy and the starvation of local government that saw local tips close led to this criminal activity and this waste crime epidemic. Fly-tipping scars our streets and parks and takes pride away but it also robs us, as taxpayers. In the 2024-25 financial year alone, waste criminals—they are not cowboys; they are criminals—evaded at least £1 billion of landfill tax. Every fridge and bit of kitchen equipment dumped as a result of a refurb has not been disposed of correctly in either landfill or incineration; that is unacceptable. We are determined to take back control of our streets, parks and countryside from those criminals. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) talked about setting up the Joint Unit for Waste Crime. Since coming into office, we have boosted the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget for the current financial year by 50%, from £10 million to over £15 million. Over the next three years, we will give the Environment Agency an additional £45 million, so that budget is going up from £10 million to £15 million this year and then up to £30 million—we have trebled it. We are not producing action plans, but putting our money where our mouth is. That will mean more boots on the ground and more drones in the air. We have pursued major regulatory reforms and boosted the Joint Unit for Waste Crime. Since the Government came to power, the EA has stopped illegal waste activity at over 1,500 sites and has achieved 125 prosecutions, with 10 people going to prison. Crimestoppers has launched a national campaign encouraging the public to play their part by calling 0800 555 111 to anonymously report suspicious activity. I encourage all hon. Members to amplify that campaign, which is running on social media at the moment. Our waste crime action plan is the next step and it is a scale-up. First, we are preventing illegal activity before it starts; secondly, we are strengthening enforcement so that offenders are caught and punished; and thirdly, we are cleaning up the most harmful sites. Let me take each of those points in turn. First there is prevention. Stopping waste crime means putting legislation through Parliament that will replace the outdated paper systems, an issue neglected under the previous Government, with mandatory digital waste tracking: a single UK-wide platform that will monitor waste movements in real time. Regulators will be able to spot diversion away from legitimate pathways and spot fraud, such as misdescription of waste, at a much earlier stage in the chain. We have laid secondary legislation that will overhaul the regulation of the waste carriers, brokers and dealers system so that there will be no more Beau Vines registered as waste dealers. We are moving from a light-touch system to full environmental permitting. We are removing widely abused waste permit exemptions on tyres, end-of-life vehicles and scrap metal, and tightening up seven other waste permit exemptions. We are also going after the tax avoiders. HMRC is expanding tax check rules to the waste sector, so if someone’s tax record is questionable, we will ask them questions before renewing their licence.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Fly-tipping: Residential Areas · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will finish my point. The Joint Unit for Waste Crime is strengthening its hand. It is bringing together environmental watchdogs, police forces and the National Crime Agency to dismantle the serious organised crime networks that blight our communities. The penalties for waste crime must match the harm it causes. The carriers, brokers and dealers reform will increase penalties for offenders to up to five years in prison. We know that sometimes those offenders will not be prosecuted for environmental crime but potentially for money laundering because they are not just criminals in one area; they have an entire criminal enterprise of which waste crime is just one branch. On the clean-up, we are going after the criminals to make sure that they pay. We have worked with other Departments to publish criteria for cleaning up those sites where intervention is most needed. We are currently funding clean-up for Bolton House Road in Wigan, Alan Ramsbottom Way in Hyndburn and Worthing Road in Sheffield. We will go much further to prevent land owners picking up the bill in the future and work with the insurance industry to explore new models to shield farmers, business and land owners from bearing the cost of waste in their areas. We recognise the role that councils have and the different challenges that they face. Thanks to this Labour Government, they have more powers at their disposal than ever before: issuing fixed penalty notices, prosecuting offenders and launching investigations. Ealing council, for example, has issued 1,993 fixed penalty notices for fly-tipping in 2024-25. When councils say that they do not have the money, it is often that they do not have the will or the skills. They can also seize the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers and crush them—or, for those interested in reuse, as I am, sell them. We have published best practice guidance and case studies on vehicle seizure to give councils the confidence to use those powers. The National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, chaired by DEFRA officials, has that guidance and Members may wish to bring it to the attention of their local councils. We have secured powers in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 for courts to impose up to nine penalty points on driving licences for fly-tipping offences. That is a strong deterrent and will make people think twice before they do such a job for their mates on the weekend. We are also consulting on a proposal to give local authorities powers to issue conditional cautions to suspected fly-tippers. Those are a range of pre-court community-based sanctions. We all want to see these guys—it is mostly guys—going to prison, but this Government inherited a court backlog along with prisons full to bursting. However, these cautions could see offenders cleaning our streets or parks in an unpaid capacity, and being required to pay back the cost of cleaning up the waste that they have dumped. It gives local authorities another tool in the box. I pay tribute to all the volunteers who have worked in this area, not least in my own city of Coventry, including at Destination Ball Hill and the Reverend Matthew Bull at St John the Divine, where I spent a very sweaty two hours cleaning up Willenhall last Friday.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Fly-tipping: Residential Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress. We are matching prevention with tougher enforcement and pursuing the criminals with every tool in the box. We are increasing the Environment Agency’s budget, as I mentioned, and giving it new police-style powers to intervene earlier, disrupt the criminals and bring them to justice before their illegal operations become established. We have to nip this in the bud when it happens; that is what we know works.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Fly-tipping: Residential Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I will not. I went back on Saturday and already someone had littered their Burger King wrapper out of a car. The issue is about people and it is very annoying. As a cyclist, I remember posting a cigarette box back through the window of a motorist who had just littered it right in front of my bike; that was one of my more fruity exchanges. We need to follow Coventry city council’s lead and have a wall of shame and CCTV, as there is in areas such as Clements Street in my constituency. Regarding the situation in Hexham, there is Waste and Resources Action Programme guidance on the accessibility of household waste and recycling centres. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) to bring that guidance to the attention of his council. It is also important that we have more tidy Fridays. Assistant Commissioner Louisa Rolfe has been seconded from the Metropolitan police to the National Police Chief’s Council to co-ordinate this work between police forces across the country. I am disappointed to hear about the Lib Dems in Portsmouth. It is really important for us to work with National Highways and crowd everybody into this space.

• 18 Jun 2026 · River Otter: Sewage Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to respond to this afternoon’s debate on behalf of my colleague the Water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who is sadly unable to be with us because she is attending an international conference on the marine environment. I thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for raising this important issue. This Government are absolutely determined to fix our broken water system. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly set out, the situation we inherited was one where pollution warnings and sewage discharges were commonplace; where regulation was stripped back; where water companies were allowed to mark their own homework; and where there were simply no penalties for failure, with incompetence and pollution rewarded. That stopped with this Labour Government. Not only have we taken action over the past two years; we have seen action this week, with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs sending a letter to the regulator about the investment plans for Thames Water. That action is ongoing. The River Otter reflects the previous failure. It is poor in the upper reaches, has moderate water quality in the middle and is poor again downstream, with excessive nutrient levels across the catchment. South West Water has not met the standards that people rightly expect. At Honiton, the sewage treatment works has exceeded its permitted flow limits and its performance has fallen short. That is not acceptable, because rivers like the Otter are not lines on maps; they are places where families walk, children explore, and where our nature and wildlife thrive. They are part of our shared national inheritance, and they deserve better. We recognise that nutrient levels in the River Otter are too high. That leads to excessive algal growth that harms local wildlife, and the Environment Agency has, under this Government, stepped in, challenging South West Water, increasing oversight and requiring improvements. South West Water has had to fix failures in how it monitors and manages its network. Spill levels, as the hon. Member has set out, have been unacceptably high at some sites. Regulators have made it clear that that must improve. We are seeing early improvements, but there is still much more to be done, and we will hold South West Water to account until it delivers. The Environment Agency is expanding monitoring of the river, and it welcomes the support of local groups, including the Otter Valley Association and Otter River Catchment Action, ORCA. I echo the hon. Member’s tributes to Bruce McGlashan. After 32 years working for the Environment Agency, he retired and had to carry on doing what he was doing as an Environment Agency officer. I send my condolences to his family. I pay tribute to Peter Williams, too—I thank them both for their incredible efforts. I watched the “Dirty Business” documentary about the water industry, and was absolutely furious, seeing the scale of deregulation under the previous Government. Of course, the water companies could do their data dumps, but without a PhD in mathematics, no one could reverse-engineer the maths to see what was really happening. There are arguments about the data and the sources, which I will come to, but I first put on record my thanks to those people for their work collecting data, raising concerns and building the evidence needed to drive positive change. I pay tribute to similar groups up and down the country who are helping us to hold polluters to account. We will secure a fair deal for customers, we will rebuild public trust, and we will protect the environment to support health, nature and our economy. The Environment Agency has identified agriculture as the largest source of pollution in the Otter, and we are taking action to tackle it. We are creating a single, clear set of rules for farmers. We are doubling farm inspections, enabling at least 6,000 inspections a year by 2029, while working with farmers to raise their standards. That is an increase from around 700 inspections in 2021. We are increasing funding for environmental land management schemes from £800 million in 2023-24 to £2 billion by 2028-29. That funding targets crucial issues, such as improving water quality. We are also taking decisive action on sewage pollution, strengthening enforcement and holding water companies to account. We have £104 billion of private investment from water companies to upgrade our ageing, creaking, leaking water infrastructure. That includes more than £10 billion to improve around 2,500 storm overflows in England by 2030 and £4.5 billion to reduce nutrient pollution over the same period, including upgrades to nutrient removal at Feniton treatment works. We have set a target in our environmental improvement plan to reduce phosphorus from waste water by 55% by 2030, putting us on track for an 80% reduction by 2038. We are well on our way to delivering that, and phosphorus removal improvements were completed at Churchinford treatment works in 2024. We are requiring water companies to ringfence investment so that it is spent on infrastructure upgrades and not diverted elsewhere, and we have, as the hon. Member notes, introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to raise standards and enforce accountability. As of 1 April 2026, water companies must publish annual pollution incident reduction plans. Under the previous Government, reduction plans were voluntary. Now they are mandatory and public, so that everyone can see what the water companies have set out to do. The Act introduced a requirement for spill monitoring at all emergency overflows, matching the pre-existing requirement to monitor discharges from storm overflows—those are two separate things. It has also given regulators powers to ban bonuses for executives at failing water companies and pursue criminal charges against bosses where needed. We have already stopped more than £4 million in bonuses for the bosses of polluting water companies. This month, we fined South West Water more than £1.8 million after the Brixham water supply incident, which involved cryptosporidium from agricultural run-off. That is a record penalty for a drinking water offence, reflecting the seriousness of the company’s failure. Where water companies fail, this Government act. I am concerned to learn that South West Water has made statements to local communities that did not accurately reflect the full position. In relation to Honiton, the company told a local group that it had sought a tighter permit limit. That was incorrect. The Environment Agency challenged that directly. The company has since acknowledged that its statement was not a true reflection of events, apologised and committed to issuing a formal retraction. This is what accountability looks like, and we will continue to enforce it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can reassure Marc Astley and the 50,000 petitioners that we are taking action to tackle bonuses given through back-door retention payments. Companies must comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the law. I am also concerned to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the gorgeous beach at Budleigh Salterton has lost its blue flag status, given that it is a designated bathing water site. We have designated more sites in order to force water companies to up their game, but this is not how it is supposed to happen; beaches are not supposed to lose their blue flags. We will look into that issue. Unlike the previous Government, we are committed to stopping pollution before it starts. If we take rainwater out of our sewers, we reduce pressure on the system and cut storm overflow spills. Capturing rainwater where it falls reduces the amount of water entering the network. It is estimated that the average household roof collects 85,000 litres of rainwater each year—equivalent to around 4 trillion litres, or 1.6 million Olympic-sized swimming pools, annually across the UK. Of course, that all runs off and is lost, and then we enter summer, there are heatwaves and drought ensues. Managing that water better can reduce discharges into rivers, like the Otter. In the clean water Bill, which will be introduced in this Session, we will commit to ensuring that regulatory mechanisms and funding support the delivery of solutions. We want to maximise the opportunities offered by better managing rain where it lands. That approach will benefit communities and the environment, prevent flooding and help with urban development, ensuring that policies and services work better to deliver. We recognise that the water sector does need reform. The clean water Bill will deliver on commitments in the White Paper, driving reforms to transform the water system for good and secure a sustainable system for future generations. It will establish an enhanced regional planning function to help identify lower cost, higher impact solutions across whole catchment areas—looking at the entire river from source to sea, instead of at individual works—and considering opportunities across sectors. That will improve water quality and supply. It will also enable a greater uptake in preventive interventions and nature-based solutions to reduce long-term costs and improve resilience. The Government are committed to improving the regulation of private sewerage to reduce pollution from those systems, which I am sure the hon. Member is aware of. We recognise that the current sewer adoption arrangements need review and will consider how to enact that change. On the Otter, the Environment Agency’s team carried out over 900 inspections in Devon and Cornwall in 2025-26, including unannounced visits, prioritising the most environmentally sensitive sites, some of which will have been in the Otter catchment. The Environment Agency is currently investigating potential offences at Ottery St Mary’s sewage attenuation tank. It is in the process of agreeing an enforcement undertaking with South West Water and investigating event duration monitoring data from the site. I am sure that will be of interest to the hon. Member, to the campaigners and to everybody who cares about this precious river. Our water system has not worked as it should, but the Government are taking strong, robust action to fix it. We are acting to clean up rivers and to hold the water companies to account for their pollution, their neglect and their negligence, and we are stopping them from marking their own homework. We are securing record investment to rebuild infrastructure, tackling pollution at its source and restoring trust in this damaged industry. We are delivering a cleaner, healthier River Otter for future generations to enjoy. Question put and agreed to.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Draft Digital Waste Tracking (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I also pay tribute to his council in Oldham, which wrote to me about a very thought-provoking motion that the council passed. The leader of the council—I am sorry; his name escapes me—said that environmental justice goes hand in hand with social justice. These environmental crimes are predominantly perpetrated against poorer communities. There is a kind of social injustice there that we must not lose sight of. There are certain parts of Coventry that are spotless and have no litter or fly-tipping, and other areas, like Foleshill, the ward where my office is, where fly-tipping is absolutely endemic. I will conclude by talking about our manifesto commitment to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up their mess. We will soon consult on giving local councils the powers to issue fly-tippers with conditional cautions, one of a range of pre-court community-based sanctions that could see offenders completing up to 20 hours of unpaid work cleaning up streets and parks and paying back the cost of cleaning up the waste that they have dumped on public land. If an offender admits to the crime, agrees to the caution and complies with those conditions, they will not face prosecution. Anyone who spends a couple of hours cleaning up litter and sweating in the hot sun, as I did on Friday in Willenhall, will be very keen not to repeat the experience. Nationwide waste tracking does not exist, so the costs are uncertain at the moment because we do not have a baseline to go from. However, we have used HMRC’s Making Tax Digital as an assumption as it is a similar digital delivery policy. We have put in a 400% optimism bias to account for underestimation because we do not know what we do not know—the unknown unknowns. There are more firms in scope for Making Tax Digital compared with digital waste tracking—obviously, because not everyone is doing waste. Therefore, economies of scale will differ. With that, I thank the Committee for its attention, good humour and positive comments this afternoon. I commend the fact that the legislation is widely supported by stakeholders for whom it could not come soon enough and who have been begging for it since the previous Government’s waste and litter strategy was published back in 2019. The hon. Member for Epping Forest asked about the circular economy growth plan. That is going through the normal Government channels and processes. I am sure he will be very excited when it is eventually produced, because that is our whole economy plan: to be a resilient, clean and highly efficient materials nation. The legislation has been highly anticipated by our stakeholders. I am delighted that it is supported by Members on both sides of the House and am thrilled to have been able to present it here today. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Waste Tracking (England) Regulations 2026.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Draft Digital Waste Tracking (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Waste Tracking (England) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I begin by wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North a happy significant birthday, and I look forward to celebrating with her later and at various points throughout the week ahead. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 23 April this year. More than 200 million tonnes of waste are produced in the UK each year, and there is currently no comprehensive way of tracking it. Legislation relating to the transport, management and description of waste has been introduced in a piecemeal fashion over the last 30 years. Large amounts of waste movement data recorded through the current system are either not collected or are required to be submitted only each quarter and, of course, they are collected on a paper-based system. As a result, at a national level, it is difficult to determine where waste is from and what happens to it. At a local level, it is difficult for waste producers to check that their waste has been handled appropriately. The system’s lack of transparency gives waste criminals opportunities to undercut legitimate waste businesses and to cause harm to our environment and communities. This crime costs the UK economy an estimated £1 billion each year, due to activities such as fly-tipping, deliberate misclassification of waste to avoid paying landfill taxes, illegal waste exports and the operation of illegal waste sites. For investigations, regulators usually need to request individual waste records by serving legal notices, which is time-consuming and prone to document falsification. Replacing the outdated paper-based system will give the Environment Agency much-needed compliance oversight and help to close the loopholes that rogue operators exploit. The regulations will support those who do the right thing, not those who undercut them and think that “muck” is an accurate waste description or that providing a partial postcode for the source of waste is acceptable. By requiring near real-time information about waste movements to be recorded on a centralised system, the regulations will enable officers to identify unusual patterns, pinpoint high-risk operators, intervene earlier and shape targeted initiatives. We are shifting from reactive investigation to proactive prevention. The regulations are the crucial first step in transforming the waste industry so that regulators—the Environment Agency—have timely data on waste movements from production right through to disposal. The previous Government consulted on these reforms way back in 2022. They responded to the consultation the following year, but critically, they did not introduce these changes. This Government are acting. The first set of regulations will mandate that waste receivers operating under an environmental permit make a digital record of waste that comes into their facilities and submit that information to the digital waste tracking system within two working days of the waste being received. A second statutory instrument will be laid before the House next year to extend requirements to capture the full end-to-end waste journey information. Before I turn to the detail of the legislation, I acknowledge the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Its report highlighted a point of interest on how digital waste tracking will interact with the new packaging extended producer responsibility scheme, or pEPR. Of course, once it is fully implemented next year, the data submitted to the digital waste tracking system will help to reduce fraud in the pEPR system as well. I turn to the detail of the legislation, which provides a new statutory framework to tackle the problem of waste tracking. It designates the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to establish, maintain and operate the digital system. It requires that permitted waste receivers make digital records of specified information, as set out in schedule 1, before submitting it on to the system. There is a requirement for operators to pay an annual fee of £26, which will be used to recoup the costs of establishing, operating and maintaining the system. Although there will also be transition costs to businesses of just over £1.5 million over four years between 2026 and 2029, and costs to obtain software estimated at under £39 million over 15 years, those costs are significantly outweighed by the future benefits of businesses no longer having to submit quarterly waste returns and, of course, the reduction in waste crime, which gives legitimate operators more waste to legitimately dispose of. Together, those savings are estimated at nearly £600 million over the 15-year appraisal period. As the illegal businesses—the criminals—leave the industry, there will be reduced unfair competition, more waste for the compliant operators and increased revenue. The draft regulations introduce a new offence of failing to comply with the legislation and make provision for criminal penalties and civil sanctions, with unlimited fines available to punish offenders. Those who try to commit fraud by entering false information on to the system can also be prosecuted under section 44 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and receive up to two years in prison. The introduction of digital waste tracking is a cornerstone of the Government’s waste crime action plan, the toughest ever crackdown on illegal waste activity. Through the action plan, we are strengthening regulations; pursuing the criminals responsible with more boots on the ground, more drones in the air, advanced technologies and stronger punishments; and accelerating the clean-up effort. We are doubling the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget with an additional £45 million over the next three financial years, on top of the £5.6 million increase we had already announced for this financial year—£50 million in total over three years. That will bring waste crime enforcement funding to more than £30 million a year, compared with a miserly £10 million a year in 2023-24. We believe in regulation for the environment, whether that is in the water sector, as we heard today with the Secretary of State’s statement to the House, or in the waste system. We are also introducing the waste carriers, brokers and dealers reform, tightening the waste exemption system and giving courts the powers to put up to nine points on the licences of fly-tippers. My message to the waste criminals is clear: we are coming for you, we will track you down and there is no longer anywhere to hide.