Environment Agency: Waste Crime

Debate between Earl of Effingham and Lord Katz

Thursday 12th February 2026 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for tabling this important Question for Short Debate and for her work as chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee.

Waste crime costs our economy approximately £1 billion every year, but, as the noble Lords, Lord Beamish and Lord Krebs, rightly highlighted, the figure is probably a lot more. But the costs are not only financial: it is a scourge of the countryside and is particularly painful for those communities who live in the area. My noble friend Lady McIntosh referred to the Times, which states today that fly-tippers have dumped a £40,000 bill on a farmer. The clean-up is often left unfairly to landowners and local authorities. Saturday morning community pickup sessions are now regrettably a regular feature of country life. Some 57% of landowners and farmers have been impacted, many of whom do not necessarily have the resources or training to address the consequences.

It is totally fair to ask the Minister: what support is available to victims of this relentless crime and what exactly are the Government planning to do to increase awareness? The Government have highlighted that understanding the true extent of criminal activity is inherently difficult. That said, it is estimated that only one in four waste crimes are being reported. Moreover, the reports available indicate that waste crime is on the rise. The Environment Agency found 749 new illegal waste sites in 2024-25, compared with 427 in the previous year—that is a substantial increase. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rightly asked, how many actually are there? The real number is probably significantly more.

The Environment and Climate Change Committee’s inquiry found serious failings in the agency’s performance. Repeated reports of serious waste crime were not investigated. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, observed in her letter that it was,

“difficult to conclude that incompetence at the Environment Agency has not been a factor”.

The Government have pledged reforms, but we note that the committee felt deeply disappointed by their response. While reforms are evidently needed and welcome, can the Minister specify what reforms they are pursuing and give timelines for the delivery of those reforms? If this is a priority, this must be reflected in the legislative programme.

Enforcement needs reform. As was emphasised by the committee, the lack of effective deterrence means that waste crime remains profitable and low-risk for organised crime gangs. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, summarised it perfectly: this is a business. The fines are just operating costs, and these are criminal enterprises. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was right when he said that it is easy money. Criminal gangs talk about it like this: “Come along, it’s free money”. As the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, mentioned, 41 out of the 60 major organised crime groups are involved. This is simply a no-brainer for criminal gangs, so when will the Government take steps to ensure that the fines match the profits obtained and contribute to the clean-up costs, as per the entirely sensible suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Jay? His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill that would put the onus of the clean-up back on the offenders of fly-tipping, which seems entirely proportionate.

The committee also recommended establishing a single point of contact for reporting waste crime. Victims should surely be able to report an incident once without navigating a maze of bodies with unclear responsibilities. Improving the Environment Agency is clearly vital, but we must remember that it is only one of 13 organisations in the Joint Unit for Waste Crime launched under the previous Government. My noble friend Lord Blencathra has previously proposed giving lead responsibility to the National Crime Agency. At the time, the relevant Minister said that all options will be considered, so I hope that today’s Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, will understand that it is totally fair and reasonable to ask what assessment has been made since then. When can we have an answer to the entirely sensible proposal from my noble friend?

Finally, can the Minister clarify what responsibilities the new integrated water regulator will take on from the Environment Agency regarding waste crime? I have had time to touch on only a handful of the committee’s recommendations, but we thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for her dedication to this issue and wish her well for the future relentless focus that will clearly be required to fix this issue once and for all.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to address this important question on what assessment His Majesty’s Government have made of the performance of the Environment Agency in addressing waste crime. In doing so, I am pleased to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and all members of her committee for the hard, diligent and challenging—but rightly so—work that they have done on this important issue.

Let us be without doubt, as we have all spoken with one voice this afternoon: waste crime blights our local communities. It damages the environment and, in the worst cases, it directly threatens our health. It also undermines legitimate businesses and deprives the public purse of tax income. Serious and organised crime in the waste sector is on the rise, and the Environment Agency is regularly alerted to new illegal waste sites.

The EA is a place-based organisation, tackling local problems through local area teams that operate in both urban and rural locations. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, expressed concern that rural areas were losing out. The way in which the Environment Agency operates ensures that it is a local and needs-based agency, rather than resource being hoarded in a particular geography at the top of the organisation. I hope that that is helpful regarding the question she asked.

This Government are committed to tackling waste crime and are helping the Environment Agency to build future capability. It has a wide range of powers, which it uses in its enforcement work against organised crime in waste and other environmental areas. Indeed, in the past couple of weeks, several arrests have been made in relation to the waste site near Kidlington, and waste sites have been shut down in Yorkshire and Minster in Kent. In Liverpool, an arrest was made and the Environment Agency seized a vehicle as part of a multi-agency operation.

In her opening contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked a question comparing Kidlington and Bickershaw. First, the scale of the fire risk at the Kidlington site sets the case apart from other illegal waste dumps in England and provides an overriding public imperative. We are clear that it is not the Environment Agency’s normal responsibility to clear illegal waste sites, and it is not funded to do so. It has the power to clear waste only in exceptional circumstances such as these, if there is a significant risk to the environment.

On Bickershaw in Wigan, the illegal dumping there is absolutely disgraceful. I know how strongly the local community rightly feels about it. My colleague in the other place, Josh Simons MP, has been complaining and campaigning long and hard on this, and I pay tribute to his work with the local community on it. The Environment Agency is working with Wigan Council and the UK Health Security Agency to help the local partnership consider the implications of the council’s waste initial sampling results and to advise on potential permitted disposal sites.

The current risk of fire is assessed as low, but the Environment Agency is reassessing any pollution risk posed by the illegal waste in the light of an updated fire risk assessment to determine whether, in principle, the level of risk meets the threshold for the use of its discretionary powers, such as those it has already used in Kidlington. In short, without going into too much detail on this site, important though it is, I want to reassure your Lordships’ Committee that if the Environment Agency considers that a risk of pollution exists, it may use its powers to arrange actions to remove or reduce that risk. Additionally, partner agencies through the local resilience forum will need to consider the risk to surrounding infrastructure.

We want to ensure that the Environment Agency is making the best use of its extensive powers to prevent waste crime. As I said, the Environment Agency has no duty to clear illegally dumped waste, and it is not funded to do so. In response to the other question that was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, this is the case for both public and private land. The landlord is responsible for keeping their land secure and free of waste that should not be there, rather than letting dumped waste persist and grow into larger sites, which could in turn attract further dumping. It might be considered as equivalent to the broken windows paradigm that one sees in community policing.

However, while we must uphold the polluter pays principle and avoid creating perverse incentives for waste criminals, the Environment Agency will decide to clear illegally dumped waste where that waste presents an untenable risk to the public and the environment, as it has done in the case of Kidlington. We also encourage local authorities to investigate all incidents of fly-tipping, including those on private land, and make good use of those enforcement powers.

Furthermore, Defra regularly assesses the Environment Agency’s performance in discussion with the Environment Agency’s chair and chief executive. The aim is to establish a clear line of sight for Ministers through to front-line delivery, transparent performance data and honest conversations about progress and barriers to delivery.

The Environment Agency reports its performance every quarter through its published corporate scorecard. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked some questions on statistics. I contend that waste crime is estimated to cost the UK £1 billion a year, with an estimated 20% of waste, 34 million tonnes per year, handled illegally at some point through the supply chain. There are more than 500 active illegal waste sites known to the Environment Agency, and it is monitoring the 33 highest risk illegal waste sites according to specific risk criteria.

However, waste crime, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is deliberately hidden and therefore inherently difficult to measure, including the total costs to the environment, local communities and individuals. We know that the Environment Agency’s current corporate scorecard measure on illegal waste sites does not reflect the true nature or scale of waste crime and likely provides only a narrow view. So, we are working with the Environment Agency to develop better indicators and metrics.

In addition to helping the Environment Agency to improve assessment capabilities, Defra has already taken steps to ensure that it is equipped to carry out its functions effectively. Its total budget for 2025-26 has increased and includes £15.6 million for waste crime enforcement, a more than 50% rise from 2024-25, representing a £5.6 million increase. That demonstrates the Government’s commitment to tackling environmental waste crime.

This has enabled the agency to increase its front-line criminal enforcement resource in the Joint Unit for Waste Crime and other environmental crime teams by 43 full-time staff, helping to deliver successful major criminal investigations and to enforce new duties introduced this year, including the new packaging extended producer responsibility requirements. Since 2020, the JUWC has worked with over 130 partner organisations and led or attended over 300 multi-agency days of action, resulting in over 170 associated arrests. So, it is fair to argue that a multi-agency approach is being taken and led by the JUWC and the EA. Indeed, in the last year, 2024-25, the Joint Unit for Waste Crime organised 70 days of action, 13 arrests were made by partners as a result of those days of action and 47 disruptions were delivered. That is some more detail about the activity that the JUWC has been undertaking.

Alongside that work, the agency is looking at technology-based opportunities to track and measure waste crime, such as combining satellite imaging and machine learning to provide early-warning mechanisms. Indeed, to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, drones are used by the agency when investigating and gathering evidence. This capability will improve the agency’s insights and business intelligence, which will inform its overall strategic approach and how it prioritises its resources. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked why there were so few prosecutions from the JUWC’s work. I should say that prosecutions take time to work through the legal and court system but numbers are in line with other law enforcement agencies when compared to the number of interventions. Prosecutions are, of course, only one part of the picture: prevention and disruption work are at least as important.

We are building on these developments to make further policy and regulatory reforms to close loopholes exploited by criminals: fundamentally reforming the waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime; tightening waste permit exemptions; and introducing digital waste tracking, to answer the specific question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. She also asked about a single contact point for reporting waste crime. The GOV.UK site has a page entitled “Reporting fly tipping or illegal waste dumping”, which directs people either to the relevant local authority, via a postcode search, or indeed to Crimestoppers, which has a hotline, depending on the scale of what is being reported.

Waste criminals often work within the legitimate system, and most waste at the largest illegal sites today was originally consigned legally. The new digital waste-tracking system and reforms to waste-permitting exemptions and the waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime will mean that criminals will have to work a lot harder to source the waste to dump in the first place. It will make it much harder for criminal businesses to undercut legitimate ones. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, talked about applying online. It is a good way to use some spare time during a debate on a Thursday afternoon, but it will be much harder to undertake a similar activity under this new system.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, referred to the case that was reported of the 80 year-old farmer. That is a very distressing case, where the cost of clearance was beyond the farmer. To help individual landowners blighted by waste crime, the Government will speak with insurers to determine the necessary market conditions for a viable waste crime insurance market to form as quickly as possible, which seems a fair approach to helping landowners.

I am tight on time but I will try to address a couple more questions from noble Lords. We talked already about reform of the waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime, but I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. On Hoad’s Wood in Kent, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, but there is certainly work happening there.

To finish, the Government have committed to tackling waste crime, not only to prevent environmental harm but to ensure resources are being properly recycled or recovered and fed back into the economy. We are not resting on our laurels. We are working at pace to develop further reforms and make sure that we tackle this problem. With that, I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate and the noble Baroness and her committee for its work, and I take the opportunity to wish everyone a very happy February Recess.

Education (Scotland) Act 2025 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025

Debate between Earl of Effingham and Lord Katz

Monday 8th December 2025 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have made valuable contributions to this debate. With all due respect, it is of great concern that the Scottish National Party has allowed educational standards to slip for way too long, thereby damaging the prospects of a generation of young Scots. The aim of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition is to do everything we can to reverse this downtrend. While this reform might be a step in the right direction towards a common goal of better education for Scotland, many questions need answering.

The previous Conservative Government understood that, to achieve educational excellence, a country needs a goal-oriented and data-driven plan. From our first day in office, we reorganised authorities and implemented new measures that reflected this belief. In doing so, we demonstrated exactly what is possible and can be achieved with a Conservative outlook on education. From when we took office until the last PISA assessment in 2022, England jumped from 27th to 11th in the world in mathematics and from 25th to 13th in reading, in addition to improvements in science. It is deeply regrettable that this was not replicated in our devolved nations. Nowhere is this more evident than in Scotland, where educational standards have continued to slip across the board, more so than anywhere else in the UK.

Scottish children now sit 32nd in the world in mathematics and science; worse, the unnecessary decline has hit hardest those who desperately want a better education. Since 2015, the Scottish National Party has said that closing the attainment gap is its priority. Why, then, have we seen the opposite: an increase in the gap between the proportion of school leavers from the most and the least deprived areas who have one pass or more in National 5s, which now sits at 22.7%? At the Highers level, that gap now sits at 38.4%—an increase from 36.9% in 2023. This appears to be a postcode lottery, which is totally unfair by anyone’s reckoning.

A key element of this detrimental outcome is driven by a qualifications body that does not achieve the purpose it exists to serve. The Scottish Qualifications Authority has been described as misaligned with the wider school curriculum. Schools aim for breadth but are forced to narrow their scope due to an increased focus on exams in later years. Unfortunately, the SQA has lost the confidence of teachers—this was confirmed by Andrea Bradley, who heads Scotland’s largest teaching union, the EIS, and who welcomed the introduction of a new qualification service—as well as that of parents and children. As was highlighted so well by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, in 2020, the SQA overlooked the professional judgment of teachers, issuing grades to 125,000 students through an algorithm. The result was that young people from the most deprived backgrounds had their grades downgraded.

It is crystal-clear that change is needed. A qualifications board that has the trust of neither teachers, parents nor students is not fit for purpose; that is why the announcement of a new qualifications body seems welcome. Looking past the announcement, though, it appears to be the same engine under a slightly different bonnet. In fact, I am particularly pleased to confirm to your Lordships that I am not able to put it better than the Scottish Labour Party, which is rightly on the record as saying that this is nothing more than a “superficial rebrand”.

The primary issue with the SQA was that it both awarded and accredited qualifications. Its remit was to issue qualifications and, at the same time, to set the standards to which those qualifications would have to adhere. It was self-referential and accountable to no one but itself. Its success was judged on how well it wanted itself to do. Various education experts have surmised that it had become its own policeman; it was marking its own homework. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that that is no way to run a qualifications authority.

It appears that the SNP has now brought forward the same failed strategy with the new Qualifications Scotland—another body that fulfils the same awarding and accreditation functions. No one wishes to see a repeat of the 2020 fiasco. Why should parents, students and teachers believe that this new body will have their best interests at heart? It is of course challenging for any noble Lord to answer for the SNP’s failings, and it serves no purpose to regret this Motion formally, but devolved Governments must take responsibility for educating children seriously. They cannot simply rebrand failing organisations, cross their fingers and hope that the outcome will be different a second time around.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are sceptical of this change. We wholeheartedly agree with our colleagues in the Scottish Conservative Party and other education experts that the SQA’s functions should have been separated. However, if that is not going to happen, our mission must be to have a relentless focus on bettering education for Scottish children through whatever means possible; we will retain a laser focus on that.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for their contributions to the debate; it is a distinct pleasure to respond to my fellow Whip across the divide. Both noble Lords focused not so much on the order but on its impact on the education of children in Scotland. Let me take a moment to say that we can all agree that the record of the SNP Government in Scotland on educational attainment levels is appalling.

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, said that Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader in the Scottish Parliament, described the creation of Education Scotland as nothing more than a “superficial rebrand”. Earlier in the year, he went further in his critique of the whole of the SNP’s failure on education, saying that it was the “defining failure” of the Scottish Government under the Scottish National Party. All of us in this Room might agree with that; indeed, with many young Scots leaving full-time education today without a single Higher or equivalent qualification to their name, it is certainly not a record to be proud of.

I regret the fact that there are no SNP Peers available here to defend their Government’s record in Holyrood when it comes to education or any of the other public services that they deliver—or, mostly, fail to deliver adequately. They simply do not know what they are missing here but perhaps they are, as they might say, a little frit. However, we are here not to scrutinise the failures of the education system under the SNP but to discuss the order being brought forward at the request of the Scottish Government, on which the UK Government, the Scotland Office and the Scottish Government have worked closely together as per the normal practice of the devolution settlement.

It is clear that, as we have already discussed, this order is necessary to implement the Scottish Parliament’s Education (Scotland) Act 2025. It is important for the whole of the UK because Scottish qualifications, whether under the SQA or Education Scotland, are taken by people in other parts of the UK—that is, in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is important that we align our regulations properly so that there is continuity for everybody in the UK taking qualifications offered and examined by what will be Qualifications Scotland, whose functions will become fully operational in early 2026. As I said, the order will also enable His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education in Scotland to be fully operational as an officeholder in the Scottish Administration, which is also planned for early 2026. Scottish Ministers simply cannot commence certain provisions in the 2025 Act until this order is made.

In closing, this instrument demonstrates the continued commitment of the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland. As we have had a slightly critical discussion of the state of education in Scotland, I should add that, of course, voters in Scotland will have an opportunity next May to run the rule over the Scottish National Party’s record in office when it comes to education and much else. For my part, I am sure that they will find the report card wanting and will want to replace the teacher with Anas Sarwar and his Administration; I am also sure that others will have other views. With that, I commend this order to the Committee.

Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Effingham and Lord Katz

Committee stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 2, tabled by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, seeks to remove Great British Nuclear, now re-named Great British Energy-Nuclear, from the scope of this Bill. In adding this amendment, my noble friend recognises the unique role of nuclear energy in our national energy strategy. He cautions against implementing duplicative regulatory burdens that could hinder the progress of a key part of the nation’s energy infrastructure.

Nuclear power is already one of the most tightly regulated industries in the UK, subject to the most stringent environmental and safety standards. The existing framework ensures that nuclear development aligns with our broader environmental goals without the need for additional oversight. Imposing further targets through this Bill may simply add another layer of unnecessary obligations, delaying projects that are critical to our energy security and His Majesty’s Government’s net-zero ambitions.

We must confront the reality that nuclear energy is different from other forms of power generation. The upfront costs are substantial, the lead times are long, investors and operators need stability and clarity, not shifting regulatory sands that might deter investment. If we are serious about expanding nuclear capacity, as His Majesty’s Government say they are, we must avoid measures that might make those projects even more challenging to deliver.

We do not believe that this amendment weakens our commitment to the environment. On the contrary, it recognises that nuclear energy is already a low-carbon, reliable baseload power source that will be indispensable as we transition from fossil fuels. By exempting Great British Nuclear from the Bill, we are not rolling back environmental safeguards but ensuring that nuclear can fulfil its vital role to society without the risk of being impacted by well-intentioned but ultimately unnecessary additional regulation.

We urge your Lordships’ House to carefully consider the amendment. A laser focus on delivering clean, secure and affordable energy, which is already highly regulated by experts, will pay dividends for future generations of this country.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for his amendment. He made some points about the new formation of Great British Energy-Nuclear. I am afraid that some of the detail that he asked for regarding the corporate structure of that body is a little beyond my bailiwick, so I undertake to write to him with more detail.

However, let me reassure the noble Viscount that Great British Energy-Nuclear, as it is now called, will continue to drive forward the UK small modular reactor programme as part of this Government’s commitment to net zero and mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower. I agree with the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in relation to the amendment and its contribution to the Bill, and I have already spoken at some length in my comments on the previous amendment about the Government’s commitment to making the UK a clean energy superpower.

After the spending review this week and the commitments that we have made not just to the SMR programme but to Sizewell C, we can be in no doubt that this is the biggest nuclear rollout for a generation, and we see nuclear as very much a part of creating that clean energy superpower. For the sake of brevity, I will leave my comments at that.