Tessa Munt MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending · Hansard source

  More

  Will the tool be used for every entrant to the prison estate or is it for those who might be suspected of having some sort of neurodiversity?

• 1 Jul 2025 · ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more; that might help us to understand the interaction between behaviour and authority.

• 1 Jul 2025 · ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed, there is no consistent data collection. That is a problem not only in Northern Ireland, but in England and Wales, which the debate is primarily about. If someone is identified and diagnosed, it can be hard for them to access the right care and support due to fragmented care pathways. That is compounded by limited awareness and understanding of ADHD in the prison services.

• 1 Jul 2025 · ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. His point is similar to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance): the earlier we screen, the better we will be able to understand how people learn. In the long run, if life is not education, I do not know what it is—I am sure the Minister will have some sympathy with that point, because he and I both served on the Education Committee between 2010 and 2015. We need to make sure we have far better screening so that people can understand how both young and older people learn. We should never finish learning. The report observed that only 24% of prison staff had received some level of training about neurodiversity. I accept that that was back in 2021, but I doubt it is much different now. A basic level of awareness of neurodiversity and the needs of neurodiverse people was lacking among frontline staff. The lack of training, combined with staff shortages in prisons, can impact the management of neurodiverse prisoners. Those working in prisons must be able to recognise that the behaviour of some prisoners may be linked to ADHD, and a lack of training for those in mental health teams can result in misdiagnoses or suboptimal treatment. There is an ongoing need to better embed training for prison officers and extend the establishment of neurodiversity support managers across prisons in England and Wales, as mentioned earlier. The structural changes that are taking place in NHS England, which has commissioning responsibility for offender health services, might provide an important opportunity to consider some of the challenges, and to develop new models for supporting people with health and care needs to access the right care and treatment in the community. That is particularly important where an unmet need has the potential to have a direct impact on an ex-offender’s likelihood of reoffending. Will the Minister outline the measures that are currently in place, and what he plans to offer, in the way of support and continuity of care for neurodiverse prisoners after their release, particularly in healthcare settings? The Ministry of Justice’s cross-Government neurodiversity action plan, published in 2022 in response to the independent review, was a step forward in the official recognition of the unmet need around neurodiversity in the criminal justice system. Some promising steps were taken to advance the commitments in the plan, such as the recruitment of more than 100 neurodiversity support managers in prisons and the roll-out of neurodiversity training in some settings. But data remains insufficient and fragmented, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said, and that poses challenges to the effective assessment of the impact of interventions. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to monitor the number and availability of neurodiversity support managers in prisons across the country, and what measurements are being used to assess the impact of their work? It is important to keep up the momentum behind the neurodiversity action plan. However, the 18-month review and update committed to under the action plan, which was due in early 2024, has not been published. I would be grateful for further details from the Minister on his plans to continue the implementation of the neurodiversity action plan. Will he outline what steps were taken last year and will be taken to implement the plan? When will the 18-month review, which was due in early 2024, be published? The ADHD taskforce was established in 2024 and recently published an interim report on the state of play in ADHD care, with its final report due this summer. The taskforce has taken a cross-Government approach, rightly recognising criminal justice as a key focus. The taskforce interim report highlights a number of important and pressing issues, particularly the need for better data to understand where and how people with ADHD are interacting with public services; the relationship between education, health and wider support in relation to outcomes for people with ADHD, including contact with the criminal justice system; and the value of earlier intervention. What steps have the Government taken and will they take to engage with the ADHD taskforce and wider stakeholders to address the barriers and implement the recommendations highlighted in its interim report and forthcoming final report? Many reports show us that people with ADHD are more likely to struggle with impulse control, emotional regulation and memory recall. We understand that those behaviours can lead to early school expulsions, unstable employment and contact with the criminal justice system. Once someone is in the system, ADHD can affect how they interact with the police, legal advisers, the judiciary, court staff and probation officers. That can increase exponentially the risks around unreliable statements, misunderstood behaviours and disproportionate sentences. Responses to their environment can lead neurodiverse people to exhibit challenging behaviour that could result in their being disciplined or sanctioned, and affect their engagement or consideration for rehabilitation programmes. Other reports, such as that published in December 2024 by Takeda, on reforming justice and tackling the unseen challenge of neurodiversity in the criminal justice system, have concluded that there is a need to reassess our approach to managing offenders and consider more innovative ways to interrupt the cycle of reoffending. That includes better approaches to addressing the unmet needs of neurodiverse individuals, where conditions such as ADHD may have a direct impact on offending. Does the Minister agree that, in the light of the challenges, criminal justice services should adjust the way people with ADHD are managed, to improve rehabilitation and reoffending outcomes? Will the Minister address the matter of women who meet the criteria for ADHD in prisons? ADHD in women is often misdiagnosed or missed altogether. Women are more likely to mask symptoms, presenting as anxious, depressed, having eating disorders or as emotionally distressed. That means that for many women and girls their ADHD is often diagnosed late or not at all. More work is needed to understand the experience of women in the criminal justice system who have ADHD. They are likely to experience multiple barriers and may be impacted by co-occurring mental health issues or other disadvantages. For example, one in three women in prison self-harms—the rate is eight times higher than that on the men’s estate—and there is a strong correlation between ADHD in women and self-harming. These issues are directly relevant to the Government’s wider ambition to reform the way female offenders are managed in England and Wales, including the intention to close one women’s prison and increase the management of female offenders in the community. That in part recognises that many women are imprisoned for lower-level offences. For example, in 2023, theft from shops was cited as the most frequent offence committed by female offenders, accounting for 40% of women’s prison sentences shorter than six months. Evidence also demonstrates that the incarceration of women can have a broader impact on families and children. Many women are primary carers, and their imprisonment can result in children being displaced, amplifying cycles of trauma and disadvantage over the generations. The establishment of the Women’s Justice Board presents an opportunity to address these issues, so will the Minister outline whether the board is currently considering neurodiversity and the impact of ADHD on women in prison within its remit? Will the Minister commit to ensuring that ADHD is meaningfully embedded and accounted for in the work of the board in order to ensure that the experiences of women with ADHD in the criminal justice system are a priority? The Government have stated an ambition to address the challenges of prison capacity and to shift the approach taken to women offenders. It is important to recognise that ADHD screening, a coherent care pathway and improved awareness and training in prisons could play a part in achieving that ambition. In summary, my current membership of the Justice Committee and my membership of the Education Committee during my service here between 2010 and 2015, along with my meeting experts in ADHD and criminal justice more recently, has emphasised to me the need to take a different approach to identifying and supporting neurodiverse prisoners to help those individuals to make new lives and thereby to help the Government to make sure that prison is effective and efficient at turning prisoners’ lives around. A new campaign focusing on the unique experience of neurodiverse individuals with ADHD in the criminal justice system explores evidence-based opportunities to improve support and outcomes. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of that campaign to discuss the challenges facing individuals with ADHD in the criminal justice system and the steps that might be taken to meet people’s needs and improve outcomes in relation to rehabilitation and reoffending? I have asked a number of questions, which I provided to the Minister and his team. I recognise that he will not necessarily be able to answer eight questions right now, but would he possibly give me the honour, first, of a meeting and, secondly, of a response to my questions?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Criminal Justice · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, we are clear that the money that goes into the probation system may not be enough to deal with the scale of the added pressures on the probation system. I think the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), talked about contract management. The example of Serco is a really good one; there will be so much more reliance on electronic tagging. Will the money actually allow that to happen?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Criminal Justice · Hansard source

  More

  Following the Leveson report, will there be capacity for more funding for his recommendations?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria · Hansard source

  More

  We do not have bins in rural areas. There is nothing bar the speed cameras.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend very much for bringing forward this debate. I point out in particular that one of my residents—a man called Chris, who is now a friend—lost his wife Lorraine. She was simply cycling back from her work at school and was hit by a driver. In order to ensure that nothing so dreadful happened again, Chris paid for speeding signs on his piece of road. It really should not be for individuals to feel so desperate that they end up funding that themselves. Certainly in my area, it is very difficult for communities to prove that they need to have some sort of speeding restrictions. Those signs are really effective, particularly since they move around in parishes, which I have and which I know my hon. Friend does not have.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister consider the fact that if someone wants to install a 20 mph limit in our towns and cities—such as Wells or Cheddar, which are plagued by speed trouble—the police advice is that drivers have to already be close to 20 mph for them to accept the need for a 20 mph limit? That strikes me as utterly bonkers. It stifles any further discussion and the implementation of 20 mph limits, even near schools.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On 28 June 1986, my constituent developed symptoms of ME, and he has lived with those same symptoms for 40 years, and the NHS remains unable to offer any meaningful intervention. Those who have lived with ME for decades—some bed-bound and in darkness—feel that no one in authority notices or cares. In 2022, the then Health Secretary started work on a delivery plan for ME, which finally offered hope. This Government promised the final delivery plan at the end of March and then put it off until the end of June, which is only seven parliamentary days away. Can the Leader of the House reassure the 1.3 million people living with ME and ME-related symptoms that they will not have to wait longer than the end of June for the Government commitment to address this huge intergenerational injustice?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Water Safety Education · Hansard source

  More

  I am greatly pleased that this debate is taking place. In my constituency and within Somerset and North Somerset—the whole of Somerset—there are 8,463 miles of rivers, reans and streams which, from Somerset, would take us as far as Singapore. That level of water coverage presents a danger not only for those who swim and need to be taught to swim, but for young people, who should understand very clearly what to do should the vehicle in which they are travelling goes into water. There are specific rules around how to save ourselves if the car or vehicle we are in goes into water. Does my hon. Friend have a comment about that?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Covid: Fifth Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Today, we mark five years since the start of the covid-19 pandemic. Just under 227,000 people in the UK died with covid-19 listed as a cause on their death certificate. Every one of those statistics is a mother, a father, a brother, a sister, a child, a neighbour or a friend. Thousands were separated from their loved ones, and that loss and grief may never fully heal. Yet in the darkest of times, the British people shone with immense compassion and courage, and a sense of community spirit. Doctors, nurses and carers worked punishing hours, often risking their own lives; teachers, council workers and others worked in the toughest of conditions; and volunteers came forward in droves to collect and deliver prescriptions, shop for the frail and elderly, staff temporary centres to administer vaccines, and check in on neighbours. That resilience and solidarity showed the very best of who we are. Sadly, that same spirit of public service was not reflected in the highest offices of Government. The findings of the first covid inquiry, led by Baroness Hallett, laid bare the truth that the UK was ill-prepared for dealing with a catastrophic emergency, let alone the coronavirus pandemic. We had planned for the wrong pandemic, one based on flu; we ignored the risks associated with other potential pathogens; we ignored warnings; and then we failed to act on lessons from past civil emergency exercises and outbreaks of disease. These were systemic and political failings that worsened people’s suffering. Let us be frank: the most vulnerable paid the highest price. There was cruelty in the rigidity of restrictions, with families kept apart even in their loved ones’ final moments. All of this was made more painful by the bitter hypocrisy of partygate, a betrayal of trust that mocked the sacrifices of millions. The Lib Dems called for an inquiry in 2020, and we continue to demand answers. The full facts must be known about every aspect of the Government’s poor response. This is not born out of a desire for vengeance; the British people deserve to know the truth, and they deserve far better in future. We now have a moral responsibility to act, and this Government must commit to implementing the inquiry’s recommendations in full and without delay. Patients and care home residents must have a legal right to maintain contact with their loved ones; a comprehensive civil emergency strategy is essential; and the new UK Resilience Academy must train 4,000 people in resilience and emergency roles, as promised. Can the Minister give us confidence that this will be delivered? The voices of frail and older people must be heard at the heart of Government planning. We call for a commissioner for ageing and older people, to ensure that their needs are never neglected again. Public officials must be held to a duty of candour—the Government’s promise of a Hillsborough law remains unfulfilled. Can the Minister say when survivors and families will see the legislation for which they have waited so long? We must also confront a hard truth: our nation was less resilient because health inequality has left our population quite simply less healthy. Years of cuts to public health services under the Conservatives left us more vulnerable. The Lib Dems are calling for urgent action to increase the public health grant and allow communities to co-produce plans; establish a health creation unit to lead cross-Government efforts to improve health and wellbeing and tackle inequality; improve access to blood pressure checks in community spaces and expand social prescribing; introduce a new kitemark for health apps and digital health tools, ensuring that they are clinically sound; create a new levy on tobacco company profits to fund healthcare and smoking cessation services; and pass a clean air Act to tackle pollution and improve air quality. Lastly, we must not forget those living with the consequences of the virus, as Members have mentioned. We call for a long covid register. As we remember those whom we lost, we owe it to them and to future generations to ensure that these lessons are not buried in reports and left on shelves, but lead to real changes that make improvements in our constituents’ lives. The British people were courageous, generous and selfless; they deserve a Government who act to match that spirit.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Breast Cancer Screening: Bassetlaw · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady very much for introducing this debate, because it is so important. I could not agree more that screening is incredibly important, but we also need to make sure that modern radiotherapy treatment is available for those whose breast cancer has been detected. NHS England has degraded the availability of radiotherapy treatment in many regions over the last 10 years. I understand that breast cancer patients from Bassetlaw have to travel over an hour, as they do in my area, to receive the radiotherapy that they need. What might the hon. Lady say about the Government’s new cancer plan? I hope it goes a long way to resolving the problem of getting access to radiotherapy, which is so effective.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Anthony’s husband’s emergency and urgent care was compromised because hospital staff could not access his medical records, even though he had been treated by specialists in the same hospital. Can we have a debate on ensuring that patient records can be accessed swiftly by clinicians across hospital trusts within regions, so that patients are not endangered by the inability of software systems to communicate within the NHS?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Phill is one of the 916 people in the special category mechanism who were suddenly and inexplicably excluded from the Government’s infected blood compensation scheme when it was published in February this year, even though the Government’s expert group had said in August last year that they should be compensated. Why did the criteria informing the eligibility for the scheme change without explanation, and can the Minister please provide a list of all the conditions included in the core award?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Imprisonment for Public Protection: Sentencing · Hansard source

  More

  17. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the third report of the Justice Committee of Session 2022-23 on IPP sentences, HC 266, published on 22 September 2022.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Imprisonment for Public Protection: Sentencing · Hansard source

  More

  It is 12 and a half years since IPP sentences were described as “not defensible” and were abolished for offenders, but 2,852 people remain incarcerated under these sentences—just 74 fewer than in June 2022. When the Justice Committee reported in 2022, its key recommendation was that the Government legislate to enable a resentencing exercise for these individuals. Will the Minister please set up an expert committee to at least advise on how to bring forward a resentencing exercise urgently?

• 22 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This week is National Epilepsy Week. Epilepsy is more than just seizures; it affects every area of somebody’s life. With more than 630,000 people suffering in the UK, every single MP in this House will have someone with this condition in their constituency. In the light of this being National Epilepsy Week, can we have a debate in Government time on the Government’s commitment to improving access to care and treatment for those with this condition, particularly those whose seizures do not respond to treatment?

• 22 May 2025 · Independent Sentencing Review · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement and the work that David Gauke has done to inform everything that is happening today. As a member of the Justice Committee, I look forward to seeing him before us shortly. I seek clarity on what the Lord Chancellor referred to as the “so-called medication to manage problematic sexual arousal”. Will she place the available research and conclusions in the Library so that we all have access to the information and can understand the data on which she and David Gauke have relied?

• 14 May 2025 · Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s statement, but I too would like to identify the gaping hole in the compensation scheme that relates to the special category mechanism. I point out that some of my constituents are in very poor health and their lives may be limited time-wise, yet they will end up with less compensation than someone who is in stage one and is healthy. At every point throughout the process, the compensation scheme has said that the SCM infected should be compensated. The infected blood inquiry said the same thing. The Government’s own expert group also said in August 2024, until they were hauled back into the Cabinet Office and then they changed their mind, that they must have compensation. I invite the Paymaster General to meet me and my affected constituent—it would have to be online, and it would be with his carer because this gentleman is very ill and suffering dreadfully, and yet he seems to have been excluded from getting fair compensation.

• 12 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Today is World ME Day, and I hope that the Secretary of State and her Ministers will recognise the up to 1.3 million people who live with ME and ME-like symptoms, and some of those with long covid. All they want is to have a normal life. I recognise what she has said about making PIP work for fluctuating conditions. Can I ask her to work with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to put aside research funding, so that money is available to ensure that those who would love nothing more than to live a normal life and go to work can get better?

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  In response to all the letters and emails from my constituents, I will focus on PIP and the effect that the changes will have on the 1.3 million people who are suffering from ME and long covid. I am particularly concerned that the additional criterion for a PIP award of needing four points in one descriptor disproportionately affects people with ME and long covid, because they currently reach their eight points with a spread of low points across many descriptors. The abolition of the work capability assessment and the focus on PIP are a double whammy, particularly given the extra difficulty that people with ME and long covid will have in accessing PIP. They did better under the work capability assessment, because that could accommodate the fluctuating nature of ME and the reality of post-exertional malaise as a distinct aspect of it. PIP does not accommodate the nature of that disability for those who suffer with the condition. The Green Paper talks about two positive moves, which I potentially support: the redesign of the PIP assessment and the recognition that many people have lifelong disability and cannot return to work, so there should be some accommodation for them through special funding. I ask that the Minister consider people with ME and long covid when looking at that redesign.

• 7 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. Ahead of the 80th anniversary of VE Day, may I thank the Prime Minister for his Government’s recognition of the highly dangerous and clandestine work of the 1,746 pilots and navigators who formed the RAF’s photographic reconnaissance squadrons, and the 635 Buckinghamshire-based photographic interpreters—often forgotten—whose service will be marked with a national memorial near the Churchill war rooms? They had a death rate of nearly 50% and a life expectancy of only two and a half months, but they nevertheless captured 26 million images of enemy operations, providing daily, up-to-date intelligence, via the interpreters’ analysis, to the strategists in the Cabinet war rooms, for all our armed forces. May I ask the Prime Minister to join me when that national memorial is unveiled so that we can pay our respects to the likes of the late Captain Wilfred Bruce Tilley DFC, of Axbridge in my constituency, and the other amazing young men and women whose work was so critical to the safety of millions of people in this country and elsewhere?

• 6 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. I have a constituent who has broken and rotting teeth. His GP referred him to the local dental hospital, but he has been refused treatment because the hospital said that the surgeon would take a referral only from a dentist, which my constituent and many others in Somerset just do not have. What does the Minister suggest my constituent should do to stop the pain?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Recycling of Tyres · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that should be the case. We need to tighten up the licensing regulation and how the whole process works, so that we can reduce the amount of damage that is done. According to global trade data, the UK disposes of approximately 600,000 tonnes of end-of-life tyres each year. About 350,000 tonnes of those are currently shipped to India. Of the remaining 250,000, some are exported to markets such as Turkey and Morocco, where they are used in the manufacture of cement. Some are processed in the UK to create materials to produce asphalt, which has many benefits for road safety and for the environment, and which enhances the circular economy. I will return to UK processing shortly. The fate of the 350,000 tonnes of tyres exported to India raises serious environmental and public health concerns. India, like other non-OECD countries, does not have the same stringent environmental emissions regulations that we have in the UK. However, most tyres exported to India are shipped as “green list waste” under the waste shipments regulations, which are contained in assimilated EU law. Batches tend to be sent in the form of baled whole tyres, which creates two risks. First, some tyres exported in that way are then sold for refitting in India, leading to road safety issues. Secondly, when exported as whole tyre bales, most of the tyres are sent on to rudimentary batch pyrolysis sites. In Indian batch pyrolysis, tyres are commonly burned to produce a high-sulphur heavy fuel called tyre pyrolysis oil—which is typically burned, causing direct harm to the environment—and low-grade carbon black, which is often unsuitable for reuse. The process involves enormous amounts of energy and the flaring of syngas directly into the atmosphere, without filtering or scrubbing, in conditions that are hazardous to operator health, the local population and the environment. The use of imported end-of-life tyres in India—both for refitting vehicles and in batch pyrolysis—is illegal under Indian domestic law, but there is a lack of even the most basic enforcement capacity to uphold the law. The reality of the uses of imported end-of-life tyres in India was the subject of a recent BBC documentary and, as the Minister will be aware, additionally the subject of a recent legal challenge against the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by the campaign group Fighting Dirty. The challenge relates to the failure of the agency and the Department to take action to prevent the illegal use of end-of-life tyres exported to India. It is important to note that this is not a historical waste crime, but one that is ongoing. Every single day, we ship around 1,000 tonnes of UK waste tyres to India. Investigators from the UK and Australia have used GPS tracking devices in several consignments of waste tyres shipped to India over the last few years, and have consistently evidenced that 100% of the tyres tracked do not reach their intended destination, with the majority being diverted to batch pyrolysis plants. What investigations has the Department undertaken to track consignments of waste tyres shipped abroad? Secondly, what conclusions has the Department reached in relation to digital waste tracking? There has been growing concern that developed countries, such as the UK, are dumping their waste problems on developing countries and have continued to export their pollution over many years. International conventions such as the Basel convention seek to better manage waste internationally, and there is domestic law to give effect to such undertakings. What is the Minister’s view on a potential producer responsibility scheme for the UK’s end of life tyres? In response to the legal challenge and the BBC documentary, the Government have announced that the Environment Agency will conduct a review into the issue. Today I seek clarification from the Minister about the scope of that review, and I have four questions at this point. Will the review be limited to an assessment of the enforcement of the existing legal provisions contained in the Basel convention and the waste shipments regulations? Will the review enable the Environment Agency to consider policy improvements? Will the review make policy recommendations to Ministers? How and when does the review intend to engage with the industry and interested parties? The Environment Act 2021 significantly strengthened the powers available to the Government to manage and track waste exports. Section 62 of the Act added to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by creating further regulatory powers to better manage and track waste exports and the countries they pass through. It also established additional powers of direction for Ministers. As I understand it, those important new powers have yet to be used. Will the Minister use her new powers under section 62 of the 2021 Act to take action to address the problems with waste tyre exports? Because end-of-life tyres are currently deemed green list waste under assimilated law through the waste shipments regulations, they are not notifiable and, as a result, are difficult to track. Will the Minister confirm that she will amend the waste shipments regulations to remove end-of-life tyres from the green list category and make such exports notifiable? Under environmental permitting regulations, there are exemptions from the need to have a permit for a number of treatments. The so-called T8 waste exemption, applying to end-of-life tyres, has long been recognised as a problem. Operators can self-certify that they handle numbers below a certain threshold and are therefore eligible for an exemption. Marking your own homework is never a good idea: often those T8-exempt operators are exactly those who trade in baled tyres to India by undercutting our responsible operators who act within the regulated regime with a permit. The Environment Agency identified the T8 exemption as a problem that made committing waste crime easier as far back as a decade ago. There were then various calls for evidence. Eventually, around three years ago, there was a consultation on removing this exemption, and the last Government confirmed that they would remove it 18 months ago. Then, nothing happened. Can the Minister confirm whether parliamentary counsel has drafted the necessary regulations and that, unlike her predecessors, she will lay the statutory instrument without further delay so that loophole can finally be closed? As we seek to identify what makes up a circular economy, we might learn lessons from approaches taken elsewhere in the world. Australia offers a powerful case study to demonstrate what can be achieved through simple legislative tweaks to end-of-life tyre exports. Four years ago, recognising the environmental impact of allowing those tyres to be exported to countries such as India for use in rudimentary batch pyrolysis plants, the Australian Government introduced a new condition that waste tyres had to be shredded before they could be exported. That Government also created a new system of notification and licensing for exporters. The Act that created the provisions was the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, which had some similar objectives to parts of the UK Environment Act 2021. Subsequent regulations giving effect to the changes were the Recycling and Waste Reduction (Export—Waste Tyres) Rules 2021. First, the new Australian provisions required operators to have a waste export licence to export waste tyres at all. Secondly, they required that tyres could be exported only in a form that had been processed to shreds or crumbs of no more than 150 mm—just under 6 inches. Those could be used in modern pyrolysis to create tyre-derived fuel for uses such as sustainable aviation, or for other purposes, but only under a scheme verified by Tyre Stewardship Australia’s foreign end market verification programme, so the fate of every export was known. At a stroke, the export of whole tyres, which could previously be used illegally overseas, was ended. When shredded, tyres cannot be refitted illegally to vehicles, nor can they be used in rudimentary batch pyrolysis plants, since those systems require whole tyres as feedstock. In addition to taking responsibility for the country’s waste and removing an environmental hazard from countries such as India, the regulatory changes also created additional feedstock for the domestic recycling industry in Australia. That was a spur to the circular economy, creating confidence for investors to increase capacity in the domestic production of asphalt and to invest in a new generation of modern, continuous-feed pyrolysis plants that can use shredded tyres and have a more positive environmental impact. Modern continuous-feed pyrolysis plants maintain steady temperatures, and achieve about 250% higher throughput for the same energy input as batch pyrolysis. The syngas is captured and reused to heat the kilns through gas turbines, which removes carbon dioxide emissions. Such plants produce higher grade carbon black, which is pelletised and reused in tyre manufacturing, supporting the circular economy. Finally, the resultant tyre pyrolysis fuel oil is refined, undergoing further processing that would meet stringent UK environmental regulations. The UK has dormant capacity to shred and process around 150,000 tonnes of end-of-life tyres each year. The reason why the plants are dormant is twofold. First, companies are unable to secure sufficient feedstock for plants because so many tyres are exported to India in baled form. Secondly, tyre collectors receive more money from India than the gate fees paid to companies who could recycle the materials here at home. The UK receives about £13 million in revenue from baled tyres sent abroad. A study by Fluid Ice and Imperial College assessed that if those end-of-life tyres were processed in the UK, even if the resultant products were exported, the revenue would be over £250 million. Several new businesses are seeking to invest in modern continuous-feed pyrolysis plants in the UK but they will do so only if they have confidence in the availability of their UK feedstock. We know that the potential feedstock exists, but it is currently being exported for illegal use abroad. I have three more questions for the Minister. If we are to adopt the circular economy agenda, should we not support investors who want to recycle end-of-life tyres here? Does she agree that we should take steps to ensure that UK companies have a domestic feedstock to give them confidence? Finally, does she agree that we should take responsibility for our own waste, process it here in the UK and maximise the economic value of that resource? The Australian model for end-of-use tyres seems good and effective, and we could easily replicate its impact and effect with relatively minor changes. I recognise that I have asked 13 questions, to which I would like answers, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on stopping the export of whole tyres to India, introducing better regulations and licensing, ensuring enforcement, and adopting a model parallel to that of Australia. I have provided her with a list of my questions, and I am happy to have her responses in writing, in the interest of completeness.