Plastic Recycling Targets

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Blencathra

Thursday 20th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I was going to give some examples of schemes for reusables, although I might have to write on the details of the metrics. A good example of a reusable plastic cups scheme already operating in a closed environment setting is the one launched in 2023 at Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire, operated by Re-universe. Noble Lords may be familiar with it. A customer pays a deposit of £2 per cup for takeaway drinks and, when the cups are returned to designated bins—it is a vending machine-style facility—the deposit is refunded to the customer. The scheme has saved 400,000 single-use coffee cups from disposal since it was launched in 2023. Using these cups just three times renders them carbon negative compared to single-use alternatives. It has saved Blenheim Palace £45,000 annually by eliminating the need to purchase single-use cups.

More anecdotally, when I went to visit my club—Tottenham Hotspur—a couple of weekends ago, it was using a reusable cup scheme. Drinks are given out in plastic cups which are returned and can be washed and reused. It saves money and is good for the planet.

I have run over a little, but I shall endeavour to answer a couple of outstanding questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on the global plastics treaty. Although the meeting to discuss the treaty did not result in agreement on a treaty, the UK joined more than 80 countries in making clear the weight of support for an ambitious and effective treaty. The UK was one of 100 countries to support the global target to reduce the production of primary plastic polymers to sustainable numbers. Of course, the UK will continue to work with its partners in the High Ambition Coalition and other countries to reach an ambitious agreement at the next negotiating session.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I neglected to say that I should congratulate the Defra officials—that is, the British team, under both the previous Government and this Government—on the superb job they have been doing on the UN treaty. We are regarded as one of the finest advocates for reducing plastic use, and that needs to be put on the record. We did a good job. The fact that we do not have a treaty is not the fault of any British Government or Defra officials.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that; he has pre-empted my vote of thanks to the negotiating teams. I am glad about, and welcome, his recognition of our intent, the quality of the people involved and the thought we put into the negotiation process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, touched on the issue of Camber Sands and bio-bead spills. This was obviously an awful event. As somebody who enjoys the natural environment of the south coast’s beaches as much as anyone, I thought it terrible to see the impact of this spill. The Government have supported industry-led initiatives such as Operation Clean Sweep to promote good practice in pellet loss prevention.

I cannot speak in more detail about the different kinds of sewage processing that the noble Baroness mentioned. If I recall correctly, a record level of investment from the water companies—around £100 billion—has been secured by Ofwat for the next period. That is exactly the sort of investment, in not just pipes but processing sewage, that will lead to the transition we want to see away from bio-beads and towards sludge.

We inherited years of underinvestment in recycling infrastructure, but the foundations are now firmly in place. Through simpler recycling, extending producer responsibility for packaging, the deposit return scheme and the plastic packaging tax, we have created a comprehensive framework that will drive substantial increases in plastic recycling rates while stimulating investment, creating jobs and supporting our transition to a circular economy. We are committed to ending the throwaway society, delivering on our plan for change and ensuring that Britain leads the world in sustainable resource management.

Litter on Canal Towpaths

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Blencathra

Thursday 20th November 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate. I am grateful to all who spoke, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, and I join the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in paying tribute to his tenacity in pursuing this subject. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, noted, we all took part in the debate on the Private Member’s Bill on environmental targets. His passion for keeping the canal tow-paths as clean and litter-free as possible was clear then, and I am glad to see that it is as strong now as it was in June. It feels much longer ago than that.

Litter is, unfortunately, a perennial problem across our country. As we have heard clearly today, it has an adverse impact on people’s everyday lives. It spoils our urban space, our rural spaces and the beauty of our countryside, as well as bringing serious risks to our wildlife and, indeed, to public health. Although it is an ongoing problem, the Government are not standing still when it comes to addressing the root causes of litter. As I was saying in the previous debate, we are committed to reducing waste by transitioning towards a circular economy. We have convened a Circular Economy Taskforce of experts to help develop an action plan for England. To combat behaviours driving litter, we will be bringing forward statutory enforcement guidance on both littering and fly-tipping. Or, rather, I join the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in calling it—I have forgotten what he said—

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I have forgotten what terms I used on Monday or Wednesday this week. I did not call it fly-tipping. I honestly cannot remember; I could not find it when I was searching for it. It was “criminal waste disposal”, or something like that.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Blencathra

Committee stage
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am afraid I will have to write to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, with that detail. But I stress that there is no statutory limit on the amount of compensation that may be imposed for an offence committed by an offender aged 18 or over. However, in determining whether to make a compensation order and the amount that should be paid under such an order, the court must take into account the offender’s means. If they are limited, priority must be given to the payment of compensation over a fine, although a court may still impose a fine. I suppose 20% of something is better than 100% of nothing, if I can put it that way.

Having said that, guidance on presenting court cases produced by the National Fly-tipping Prevention Group, which is a group chaired by Defra that includes a wide range of representatives from interested parties—central and local government, enforcement authorities, the waste industry, police and fire services, private landowners, and the devolved Administrations—sets out that prosecutors should consider applying for compensation for the removal of waste. Defra will consider building on this advice in the statutory guidance that will be issued under Clause 9 once the Bill becomes law.

Noble Lords will also be interested, I hope, to hear that local authorities can already issue fixed penalties of up to £1,000 to fly-tippers, the income from which must be spent on clean-up or enforcement. Local authorities issued 63,000 fixed penalty notices in total for fly-tipping during 2023-24, and these were the second most common enforcement action, according to Defra data.

I fully understand the sentiment behind these amendments and entirely accept the principle that the polluter should pay but the Government believe that the sentencing framework, as set out in primary legislation, is the proper place to deal with this issue. I recognise, however, that there may be benefits in providing the court with an alternative disposal relating to penalty points, as proposed in Amendment 46 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Defra remains committed to considering such a move and will provide an update in due course.

I also stress, and in response to Amendment 47, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, noted, that there is an existing power for local councils and the police to seize a vehicle where there is a reasonable belief that it is being used or had been used for fly-tipping, which can lead to the vehicle being sold or crushed if it is not claimed. If the vehicle is claimed, the council can prosecute and a court can order that ownership rights are transferred to the council, under which it can keep, sell or dispose of the vehicle. There were nearly 400 vehicles seized in 2023-24 as an enforcement action.

When such an order is being considered, it is appropriate that the court must consider certain factors that Amendment 40, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to remove. The duty on the courts to consider these factors, such as the financial impacts of the forfeiture or the offender’s need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes, embeds principles of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of—our friend—the European Convention on Human Rights. This entitles a person to a peaceful enjoyment of their possessions but allows the state to enforce laws to control use of that property when it is in the general interest. Any such interference with this right must be lawful for legitimate aim and be proportionate. Amendment 40 would remove these safeguards, and we should always tread lightly when considering long-held rights regarding property, something I am sure I would not have to tell the Benches opposite.

In light of my explanations, I hope the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response and to all those who have spoken in this short but interesting debate. I start with the problem: fly-tipping does not sound as bad as the crime actually is. Many people say, “Oh, fly-tipping, that is just dumping a mattress or a fridge in the countryside”, but as we have seen recently, there are 30,000 tonnes of contaminated garbage in Hoads Wood, with probably around 900 or 1,000 tonnes left at the weekend. It is not fly-tipping: it is rubbish racketeering. I am not going to suggest an amendment to change the title of it, but we really need to take it seriously.

Now, the other point that my noble friend on the Front Bench and I—and, I think, nearly all of us—agree on is that, ideally, the landowner should not have to pay the cost of clearing it up. He or she is the victim by having it dumped on their land in the first place, and then they are the victim the second time around in having to pay for clearing it up. But it should not be the ratepayers who pay for it either.

Ideally, of course, it should be the people who do it, but in many cases, we cannot catch them; we do not know who they are. In those circumstances, it seems grossly unfair that the landowner then has to bear the cost of doing that. We may discuss this in the next group of amendments, but I would hope that on, say, the Kidlington thing, a couple of forensic experts can crawl over that and find something. There must be addresses; there must be some data—that rubbish has not come from 200 miles away. There must be intelligence to pin down who has been doing it and then we should hit them hard.

I do not accept that the European Court of Human Rights would say that we need all those safeguards before taking away the vehicle of someone who has been involved in heavy crime. I challenge the Minister on that. I like the idea of three points on the licence, although I would go slightly further and make it three points for every load the person has dumped, but there are various penalties we can add there as well.

So I think we are all on the same side here—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel on the Front Bench, myself and the Minister—and we are all searching for slightly tougher penalties. I hear what the Minister said, but perhaps if all of us on this side of the House could agree some simple, concerted amendment for Report where we can toughen up on this a bit, maybe adding the penalty points thing, maybe finding some way to make sure that the landowner does not pay and some way to penalise the organised crime behind this, it may be worth while coming back on Report. But in the meantime, in view of what the Minister said and his assurances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his amendments to the clauses that implement this Government’s manifesto commitment to hold senior managers of online platforms, be they social media platforms, online marketplaces or search engines, personally liable for the failure to remove illegal online content relating to knives and offensive weapons. His Amendment 55B would require the co-ordinating officer—that is, the person appointed by the Home Secretary to administer these new powers—to have the necessary internet and online sales experience and skills, stating that they need not be a warranted officer. Amendment 55F would make these criteria explicit in the statutory guidance for these measures.

I agree with the sentiment behind the amendments. It is of course important that the co-ordinating officer responsible for the administration of these powers be suitably experienced. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are providing £1.7 million for a new national police unit to tackle the illegal online sale of knives and weapons, including the issuing of content removal notices. The unit will be dedicated to co-ordinating investigations into all aspects of online unlawful knife and offensive weapon sales, and to bringing those responsible to justice. It will also improve data collection and analysis capability in order to expand police understanding of the knife crime problem and how enforcement activities can best be targeted. The intention is that a senior member of this specialist unit will be appointed as the co-ordinating officer, and they will have the necessary skills and resources to administer the powers.

Whoever is appointed as a content manager must be experienced in both aspects of the problem we are trying to tackle. They should have experience not only of online sales but of the investigation of illegal online sales of knives and weapons—that is, they must be able to understand the investigatory and evidential process as well as having experience of the internet. This will, to paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, not be any old bobby with a warrant card but someone highly experienced in internet sales and the investigatory and evidential role. That is why, in short, we feel that the role must be held by a warranted officer. It is a police role. They will be issuing enforcement notices and, as part of the criminal process, they need to have that experience as well as the essential online experience that all noble Lords who spoke in the debate mentioned; we agree that that is necessary.

Given the assurance that we are not neglecting the online side of things, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will be sufficiently reassured and is content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, first let me say that I am almost overcome with deep emotion, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the Lib Dems have supported a Blencathra amendment—I wonder where I have gone wrong.

I say to the Minister that I am not totally reassured. I was not suggesting any old bobby; I was afraid that the police would automatically look for someone of senior rank: inspector, superintendent or chief superintendent. But the absolutely crucial thing is that that person must be fully qualified on internet sales and online stuff. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, set it out with rather elegant detail; I called the person a computer geek. If that superintendent is a senior investigating officer and he or she is a computer geek, then I am satisfied. I do not suggest that I will take this back on Report, but the Minister’s answer did not totally satisfy me that the best person will necessarily be recruited for the job. Yes, of course the person must have an understanding of investigation techniques, but that does not necessarily mean that it has to be a high-ranking police officer. The police already have civilians investigating things that do not require an officer.

As I say, I am slightly equivocal about the Minister’s answer. It is slightly disappointing that the Government will not countenance the possibility that this person may not be a warranted officer. It is quite simple: if you recruited the right computer geek, you make him or her warranted officer—you can do it that way. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Well, that is a very good segue into the words that are just following—I was about to get there.

Many knives and weapons that are sold illegally are sold relatively cheaply, in the order of tens of pounds. Some sellers who sell knives and weapons over social media tend to hold and advertise small stock numbers. Therefore, we contend that the suggested minimum penalties are simply too low to incentivise the prompt removal of illegal content. The independent review of online safety of knives shows a case study as an example where an individual bought 30 knives to sell illegally over social media for under £50 each. Should the social media company not take the illegal content down, the proposed minimum fine under these amendments would be £1,500 for the executive and £7,500 for the companies. Those penalties, as I am sure noble Lords would agree, would be too low for large tech companies and executives to be worried about at all. Not having a minimum penalty will leave full discretion to the police, who specialise in investigating illegal knife sales online. This will allow them to use their judgment to issue fines that are commensurate in each case.

The penalties for failing to comply with these are, as already noted, issued in the form of civil penalty notices by the police. They can be up to £60,000 for companies and £10,000 for individuals. I remind noble Lords that these penalties are for single violations and will add up if companies and executives repeatedly fail to comply with removal notices. The measure is intended not just to punish companies but to facilitate behaviour change. I trust that the police administering these measures will issue fines of an appropriate level to incentivise the prompt removal of illegal content.

I note the experience, which I found instructive, of the independent review of the online sale of knives, that a lot of the activity is undertaken through very small stocks that are cheaply sold. If we used the regime of a proportionate measure, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, we simply would not generate enough. Noble Lords may not think that £60,000 is worth much, but we certainly would not generate anywhere near £60,000 in those examples.

It is worth bearing in mind that a lot of the grey market sellers do so over social media websites. The recipient of the fine is the tech company that does not take down the illegal material, rather than the person selling the knives or the weapons. We understand the intended recipient of the punishment—the fines—which is why we think that having the £60,000 or £10,000 level is appropriate, because that is for single offences. Any time a company fails to remove the content for which they have received a notice, the fines will add up and accumulate, which will make an impact—and we would all agree that that needs to be done.

In response to another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, we feel that the Sentencing Council is unlikely to comment on the level of a civil penalty. That may be a little speculative from my perspective, but I think that it is probably what the experience bears out.

Given this explanation and the clarification of our view of how the environment—I should not have used the word “market” earlier—in which these sales take place, I hope that the noble Lord is sufficiently assured that these penalties will have an impact in the way they are set out in the Bill and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I almost had palpitations for the second time tonight when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, supported my amendment.

I hear what the Minister has to say. I had not intended for the 500% penalty to apply to just two or three individuals selling a few knives; I intended that it would apply to the supply of the whole shooting match. The individuals who are selling a few knives have got them from somewhere: there is a supplier or a big source making these by the thousand. For someone at the centre who has a warehouse with £100,000 worth of knives, a penalty of £500,000 would clean them out completely, whereas a penalty of £60,000 would still leave them with £40,000 profit. However, I accept the point that, if the case involves small-scale individuals, the 500% penalty might not be as great as the penalty in the Act. I wonder whether it is worth looking at the possibility of offering “either/or” as an option—I think that is a possibility for the future.

I will make another general point. I woke up about a week ago at 2 am and thought of this proportional system. It may not be perfect for knives, but I think there is some merit in this concept of proportionate fines for certain offences, whereby rather than having a maximum penalty imposed by law, the penalty is a percentage—100%, 200%, 300% or 1,000%—of the value of the goods being advertised or sold.

Bearing in mind what the Minister said, we would like to look again at the possibility of offering a fine and some proportional penalty. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Blencathra

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I thank all noble Lords for this short but focused debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for introducing his amendment. As he has explained, it seeks to allow registered social housing providers to issue a closure notice in relation to an individual flat within a housing block that they own or manage.

The closure power is a fast, flexible power that can be used to protect victims and communities by quickly closing premises that are causing nuisance or disorder. Clause 5 and Schedule 2 extend the closure power to registered social housing providers. Currently, only local authorities and police can issue closure notices. This is despite registered social housing providers often being the initial point of contact for tenants suffering from anti-social behaviour. Now, registered social housing providers will be able to issue closure notices and apply for closure orders, to enable them to close premises that they own or manage which are associated with nuisance and disorder.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned a specific landlord. Without going into the facts of that case, it is clear that registered social housing providers have to meet regulatory standards set by the regulator of social housing. There is statutory guidance in place, and registered social housing providers are expected to meet the same legal tests as set out in the 2014 Act that the noble Lord mentioned. This will ensure that all relevant agencies have the right tools to tackle anti-social behaviour quickly and effectively. In turn, this will save police and local authorities time, as housing providers will be able to make applications directly, rather than having to rely on the police or local authority to do so on their behalf.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised his concerns about risks of abuse. For instance, he was concerned that extending the power to housing providers might risk it being misused to evict tenants, such as those in rent arrears. There are robust safeguards in place to mitigate the risk of misuse. Like other agencies, housing providers will be required to consult with relevant partners prior to the issuing of a closure notice. This requirement is in addition to the legal test having to be met and the fact that the process will go through the courts.

I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others that premises here means any land or other places, whether enclosed or not, and any outbuildings that are, or are used as, part of the premises. This could therefore already include an individual flat within a housing block. Indeed, that would be the expectation: that this targets individual households, rather than whole blocks of flats. We are confident that the current legislative framework and the Bill will cover that and make that clear. On the basis of that clarification—of course, I will reflect on Hansard and the points he specifically raised about the 2014 Act, and I will write to him in more detail if I need to—I hope the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. I am quite happy with all the standards and powers, and I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones; I know there are robust standards. The only thing I was interested in was whether the word “premises” includes individual flats in a housing block. I have the Minister’s 98% assurance on that. I would be very grateful if he and his officials would reflect on that and, at some point, confirm absolutely to the House that the power exists to close an individual flat or a couple of flats, and not just the whole shooting match of the block. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Rivers and Estuaries: Derelict Boats

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Blencathra

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will try my best again for my noble friend. He raises a specific case in Maidenhead; I will be honest with the House, I do not have the details of that case. He is absolutely right that we rely on our navigation authorities, local authorities, local landowners and the community to work together. It should not be up to just one landowner to do the right thing; we need everyone to work together. I will certainly undertake to examine the lacuna in law that he has identified; perhaps I can write to him with some more detail.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, abandoned and derelict vessels—that well-known acronym ADV, which I learned about yesterday—not only are unsightly and a blot on a landscape but cause terrible pollution from engine oils, diesel fuel leaking out, battery acid, and corroded metals and plastics. Ideally, the owners should be made to pay for their removal, but they are usually impossible to find, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, pointed out. I did not know about the Avon. Natural Resources Wales is paying for the removal of some boats in the River Dee, but I do not think we can ask the taxpayer to foot the bill in England.

Therefore, I think for the first time in 40 years, I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I suggest that Defra should convene a conference of local authorities, river estuary owners, the Canal & River Trust and any other relevant authorities and marine experts to see whether a way can be found to deal with this problem, making the owners pay and not the taxpayer. If there is a lacuna in the law, let us deal with it.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I too have learnt some new acronyms this week and ADV is one of them, so I join the noble Lord in gaining that knowledge, and in understanding the importance of the fact that, as I continue to repeat to this House, navigational authorities are independent of government but are also responsible for enforcement action. The funding agreement that I mentioned with the Canal & Rivers Trust will have particular KPIs attached, such as enforcement and ensuring good, timely and responsible stewardship of the land in its control, whether in terms of clearing litter off the towpath or dealing with abandoned boats. Both are absolutely part of that.

We believe in devolution and in making sure that bodies such as navigation authorities, which understand their patches best, can have control of them. We cannot have our cake and eat it and say there should be some national enforcement when we must support those navigation authorities on the ground to do the job right.

English Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling and Dredging

Debate between Lord Katz and Lord Blencathra

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, and this is why we are serious about taking action in this area. When it comes to national security or promoting biodiversity and protecting our marine environment, we want to work with all stakeholders to get this right. I would be very interested to hear the views of the National Preparedness Commission and other such authorities in understanding the impact of bottom trawling on this important kind of national infrastructure.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, bottom trawling is an appalling way to fish but a superb way to destroy everything on the seabed. Last year, according to statistics from Oceana UK, just 10 fishing vessels of at least 20 metres in length were responsible for 27% of the suspected bottom trawling in our marine protected areas, wrecking fragile seabed ecosystems, releasing carbon and dumping tens of thousands of tonnes of discarded fish of the wrong sort. I say to the Minister that that applies to every single MPA, not just those with special species that he wants to protect. None of these 10 vessels was from the UK, and just 6% of the total 33,000 hours of suspected bottom trawling in MPAs was carried out by UK vessels. While we welcome the consultation, would the Government partly redeem themselves from selling out our fishermen to the EU by banning those 10 big foreign boats, which would lead to a 20% saving overnight, and then phase out the rest of bottom trawling over the next couple of years?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord would agree that it is important that we have a comprehensive, fair and equitable approach to the way that we protect our marine environment. The noble Lord mentioned discard rates; at present, it is the case that the Cefas observer programme wants to provide estimates of the discard rates for a variety of quota species, including using methodologies aligned with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea standards. Looking ahead, we want to implement a remote electronic monitoring programme, which involves installing cameras on vessels, which is expected to enhance our understanding and really understand the landscape of good behaviour and bad behaviour. In the meantime, I say to the noble Lord that we believe that the approach that we are taking is ground-breaking, but it is in line with what has happened before under the previous Administration. We are taking a whole-piece approach to this important issue.