Environmental Protection

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 20 May, be approved.

It is a pleasure to be here on this hot and sultry evening. Despite our late nights or early mornings—whatever we decided to do in order to get over the football—I hope I can entertain the House with this vital piece of new legislation. I would like to acknowledge the important work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its review of this statutory instrument. Its scrutiny is a vital part of our legislative process, ensuring that the policy intentions behind our secondary legislation are clear and well founded.

As Members across the House will know from their inboxes and will have seen for themselves, waste crime blights our constituencies. Criminals who dump waste illegally in our streets, our fields and our woodlands show contempt for our communities and for us, creating eyesores that damage our environment. Under the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, a light-touch registration system was set up for those who transport and deal in waste. It has remained pretty much untouched since then. As a result, it has been exploited by waste criminals, leaving the public with a huge clean-up bill. Enforcement, sadly, is only reactive. The system is not fit for purpose, with anyone or anything—a dead dog called Oscar, a fish, or even a cow called Beau Vine—being able to register on the system. That stops today.

This Labour Government are scrapping the broken waste system that the Conservatives left behind. Today we are introducing stricter checks and requirements, closing the loopholes long exploited by illegal operators, and the objective of this Government’s waste crime action plan, published in March, is to stop waste crime at its source and to bring pride back to our communities. We are cracking down on the waste criminals, dragging the regime into the modern age and improving waste traceability.

These regulations bring those in England who control and transport waste within the scope of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. They repeal the current carriers, brokers and dealers registration, which is now over: finished, kaput, no more. These regulations introduce tougher checks for waste controllers and transporters. Permitting will now be required for those who control and transport waste, bringing the system in line with site-based waste activities. Those who apply for permits will undergo strict background checks, including tax checks, identity checks and criminal records checks. They will need to demonstrate that they are technically competent to do the job.

The Environment Agency will be responsible for managing applications for, and ensuring compliance with, this new permitting system. The fees introduced for permits will also mean that the Environment Agency will be effectively resourced for its compliance work.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

My constituents in Rushcliffe have experienced the consequences of waste crime very recently. In April, there was a fire at the Hathernware industrial estate, eight years after a previous fire. This particular fire raged for seven days and caused significant health impacts for the local community. Will my hon. Friend go further and think about how the different agencies with responsibility for waste should be working more effectively together? Although the Environment Agency was involved with this incident, it also thought responsibility lay with the county council and other agencies. I think they all need to come together so that there is proper accountability.

[Mary Creagh]

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

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

In my previous role as Lancashire’s police and crime commissioner, the connection between such sites and organised crime gangs was often well documented. As the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) outlined, a multi-agency response is often needed, but it is important that we do not forget the role of the police, who often have to escort other agencies to the sites in order to protect them from the people operating them.

[Mary Creagh]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The idea that we can send Environment Agency officials to deal—in some cases—with serious organised crime groups is simply for the birds. People say, “There aren’t prosecutions” or “The penalties are too light”, but the waste is often one part of a multifaceted criminal enterprise—it is just another wing of a business empire. We need to get better at looking upstream, looking at tax checks and looking at the web of companies behind the business, and basically doing the Al Capone method—getting them on tax evasion—and prosecuting them under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

There is a wider point here: we cannot expect council officials who have been denuded and stripped of funds over the last 14 years to suddenly become waste crime enforcers. There may be only one or two trading standards and compliance officers in post in a local council, but this sort of sophisticated crime requires a lot of multi-agency work. Someone from the National Police Chiefs’ Council is now tasked with doing that work; we are doing a review, particularly of local authority competence in this area.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Minister has touched on organised crime. As I am sure she is aware, modern slavery can be a real issue within the waste crime sector; we have had some powerful debates on that issue in the Chamber. The waste crime action plan sets out that people will be held to account and given community service, but we need to reach further up the chain, because often the people who are caught in the act are the ones being exploited or forced to carry out such activities. I am reassured by what she says, but does she agree that we need to go further up the chain?

[Mary Creagh]

We need to take action at every level. For example, the person who does a weekend job for their friend, transporting half a skip of old kitchen waste that suddenly ends up on a lay-by, in a farmer’s field or blocking a lane, will now face up to nine penalty points on their licence; that should make them think twice before doing that job for their friend. They may only be on the periphery of the criminality, but in order to stop it, we have to look right the way along the chain. Anecdotally, I often hear that when these small-time crooks are apprehended, they are only too pleased to pay the fixed penalty notices to the council and to be let away with it, because they can be the front end of a much, much larger serious and organised crime group.

So what does this all mean? The Environment Agency is finally going to be effectively resourced to undertake the compliance work. The move to permitting means that the agency can suspend and ultimate revoke permits where conditions are breached. It can also prosecute, and those found guilty will face fines or up to five years’ imprisonment. The regulations will mean that the public should have more trust in the people they hand their waste to. We will require waste controllers and transporters to include their permit number on advertising, whether that is a Facebook ad or a branded van.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I very much support the proposals that the Minister is outlining. One of the groups most impacted by waste crime is farmers. There is a farm in my constituency where more than 200 bales of DIY waste were dumped on the land, at an estimated cost of £250,000 to remove. I welcome the discussion on fines, but does she agree that we need to look at whether those fines can go towards the cost of the clear-up to a greater extent, to match the scale of the crimes committed?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend is right. We are acutely conscious of the issue that farmers face. There is innovative work being done with drones, and I met one farmer who told me that his neighbour turned up with a tractor to block the lane as the criminals were trying to make their exit; they caught them in a trap and then called the police. That was a happy outcome in Hertfordshire, but we cannot have eyes on the ground in every field and back lane, so we are working with insurers to see what we can do to ensure that this type of crime is properly covered under farmers’ business insurance.

The regulations will mean that the public should have more trust in the people to whom they hand their waste. The public will be able to look up operators and ensure they have a valid permit. This reform is one of a number outlined in the waste crime action plan. It is nothing new: it was first announced eight years ago by the Conservative party, in the 2018 resource and waste strategy. It was consulted on back in 2022 and the Government gave their response in 2023, but it is this Government that have delivered it.

We have introduced digital waste tracking, replacing outdated paper-based methods for monitoring waste movements. We will be tightening the waste permit exemption system by getting rid of exemptions abused by those dealing with end-of-life vehicles, tyres and scrap metal. We will be enabling the Environment Agency to tighten up on exemptions abused in other parts of the waste sector, including the use of waste in construction, preparatory treatments, the treatment of waste wood, manual treatment, burning of vegetation at the place of production, storage in containers and storage in a secure place. Taken together, these measures strengthen the regulatory framework and the Environment Agency’s ability to prevent, detect and tackle waste criminals.

[Mr Snowden]

The Minister is being very generous in taking interventions. In my previous role, and from meeting people working in the industry in my Fylde constituency, I discovered that the Environment Agency often regularly visits those businesses that are already abiding by the law and keeping good records, because those records are easy to inspect and the companies are easy to deal with, and it often issues fines for small misdemeanours. Meanwhile the criminal operators, who are flagrantly breaking the law, often evade any inspection because they are difficult to deal with and aggressive. The regulatory framework is important, but the culture of going after those who are flagrantly breaking the law, rather than just checking people’s paperwork, is really important as well.

[Mary Creagh]

Under the current system, checking the paperwork is all that the Environment Agency can do; that is the problem. Under the managing public money rules, the Environment Agency is not funded by legitimate operators to go and seek out criminals. We consulted on that during discussions about digital waste tracking. There is an issue with saying to legitimate operators, “We will add a tenner on to your licence so that we can go after the criminals”, because that is not allowed under Treasury rules. There is a chicken-and-egg situation, and I have heard the same anecdotes as the hon. Member. The bottom line is that if someone is controlling or transporting waste, they should be registered, the registration should be clear for all to see, and we should be able to check that they are a true person on the system and that there is nothing in their background that would make us hesitate about whether to issue a licence.

To come back to the issue of a multi-agency response, we have an action plan and we are working with the Environment Agency, the national lead for waste crime, alongside His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is going after the tax, the Home Office, which is covering the issue of vulnerable workers and exploitation, local police forces and local authorities. We are undertaking co-ordinated cross-Government action. We will monitor the effectiveness and improve metrics so that we get a much better multi-agency waste crime response.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Minister was just talking about metrics. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), will she say a little more about organised crime? In assessing the effectiveness of these changes, what key metrics would she apply to prosecutions relating to organised crime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me, but it is a bit too early to say. These prosecutions often take a long time to piece together. We have all seen the pattern where a company goes bust, owing HMRC a vast amount of money—sometimes in the tens of millions of pounds. I do not want to get into saying, “One, three, five or seven,” and setting out those targets; I do not think we are at a stage to talk about that.

However, I can reassure the House that my risk appetite for not granting permits to people who may be questionable is very high, and I am very happy to be taken to court by people who think they may have unjustly been denied a waste permit. So far, there have been no cases against us or the Environment Agency for refusing a licence.

We are tightening up all the way along the system, but I do not want to get into metrics. We know the sites where we have problems and we see new ones appearing, and the thing is to stop the proliferation of those sites, many of which are simply illegal and are not permitted in any way, shape or form. That is where our difficulty comes in.

[James Naish]

I want to go back to the case that I mentioned earlier. For the Minister’s reference, there will be a two-and-a-half-month delay between the Environment Agency wanting to take action and managing to get the court order that will prevent the individual from getting access to the site, where there has been a second illegal fire within eight years. May I put on the Minister’s radar the importance of sorting out the courts so that immediate action can be taken when problems are identified?

[Mary Creagh]

I am responsible for many things, from forests and international biodiversity to peat and trees; I am afraid the courts are slightly outwith my jurisdiction, but I will pass that point on. We are working with our colleagues on issues around sentencing.

On the metrics, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) knows, as a former Environment Secretary, that we have a risk-based, intelligence-led approach that directs the greatest effort towards the highest harm illegal operators. By strengthening the regulatory framework and their abilities, alongside these reforms, we are providing those in the joint unit for waste crime, who are responsible for tackling it, with the tools that they need to stamp it out.

I was very disappointed to read The Times’s leader today on fly-tipping; I thought it was a little unfair. This Government have doubled the Environmental Agency’s waste crime enforcement budget by committing an additional £45 million over the next three financial years. I believe the budget in 2024-25 was £10 million. We have added £5 million on this year, and then we will add an extra £15 million. Essentially doubling that budget means more boots on the ground and more drones in the air to expand enforcement activities and track down waste criminals. Since March, I believe we have had 18 waste crime prosecutions.

I acknowledge the strength of support in the legitimate waste industry for this reform, and its patience over the years as that reform has been developed under the watch of the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire and others. These regulations are a significant change. They level the playing field for all operators and will protect communities and the environment from waste criminals. As I said, this is a really important part of our plan to stop waste crime.

These regulations also bring the Environment Act 2021 within the scope of the primary authority scheme by adding it to schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. For those unfamiliar with it, the primary authority scheme allows businesses with operations in more than one area to work with a single local authority that provides consistent, tailored advice on meeting their legal obligations, which can cover areas such as environmental health, trading standards and fire safety.

Extending the scheme to include the Environment Act is important, because it will enable primary authorities to support retailers in understanding and meeting their responsibilities under the forthcoming deposit return scheme, which launches next year. That will help to ensure a more consistent and effective approach across the country. I recommend this statutory instrument to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I will be brief and try not to detain the House for too long, but what a rich and insightful debate we have had. Let me begin by addressing the question of costs, which was raised by the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), who speaks for the Conservative party. Legitimate waste businesses are highly supportive of these regulations, as they raise standards and level the playing field across the industry. There is a tiered approach to the new permitting regime, which will ensure that those carrying large amounts of the most at-risk types of waste will be distinctly identified and charged accordingly.

If we do the maths—I stopped doing maths when I finished O-levels, which was quite a long time ago—we are providing £186 million over the 11-year appraisal period, which will be offset against businesses incurring costs from increased tax. In other words, they will be brought into compliance and begin paying tax—£183 million. So yes, they will have to pay more. The ones that do not pay anything at the moment are going to be paying their tax. One of the reasons they have moved into this space is that they can take mixed household waste and charge people £125 for landfill, then move it on to somewhere else and say, “It’s only soil.” They are making £120 profit on every tonne that they take. Let us do the maths: if we have 300,000 tonnes here and 100,000 tonnes there, pretty soon we are talking about tens of millions of pounds from one illegitimate landfill site. I am not crying any tears about that and I think that, outside this place, our constituents will be cheering and clapping.

As I have said, legitimate companies know that they are being undercut by the rogues and the criminals—and why should they not have to learn how to do this? We have heard about vapes, industrial waste and all sorts of stuff turning up in landfill sites, and at the moment we are saying that it is absolutely fine—that anyone with a pair of gloves and a van can just come along and take the waste. No, that was the old way. We want to protect the environment and protect people as well, and we are also interested in protecting businesses. The impact assessment for the regulations says that businesses will

“benefit from reduced waste crime”,

to the tune of £159 million, so I hope that most businesses will be better off. There are exemptions for charities, but we do not exempt small businesses and microbusinesses from complying based on their size; we have heard about all the small businesses and microbusinesses in this space, and exempting them would undermine the policy and our risk-based approach. Some of these businesses pose a significant waste crime risk, so we will be rolling this out.

The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury asked about monitoring and review. We have an independent resources and waste policy programme evaluation, which will assess the impact of the major reforms that we are bringing in. That will report in March 2029, but as with anything, if stuff is not working, we will listen and take action.

I turn to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett). I know his neck of the woods very well, having served as one of the four MPs for Wakefield until 2019, and he is right to say that our constituents have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home. I was really saddened by the story of his constituent who was unable to celebrate his birthday with his family in his own home because he was ashamed of where he lived. I was also saddened to hear of constituents waking up with migraines and tasting the smell, and of kids feeling sick at school. It is absolutely disgusting.

Mineral processing at the site has significantly exceeded its permitted waste volumes, which has resulted in approximately 320,000 tonnes of misdescribed inert waste containing biodegradable fines—the little bits that are chipped down. The site permit has been revoked but the waste remains, and we have heard the persistent and worsening concerns about the odour. We have had warmer weather recently, and there were 18 reports over 24 hours on 24 and 25 June. There is increasingly dissatisfaction with the persistent impact, so the EA is monitoring the site, and it has installed an additional air quality and odour monitoring facility to provide further data.

The EA is carrying out proactive odour monitoring in the area, requiring the operator to submit an odour management plan to address odour pollution. It is studying air quality impacts by using mobile monitoring facilities installed in the area and handheld gas analysers, and it is continuing to inspect the site and record permit breaches when it finds them. The EA is also monitoring the water quality in Frickley beck, because we do not want persistent and potentially organic pollutants to end up in our water supply, only for taxpayers and bill payers to be responsible for the clean-up further down the river. We are acting on intelligence received about vehicle movements at the site and are working closely with partners, including colleagues at the UK Health Security Agency and Wakefield council. The site permit has been revoked, and the site is no longer operational.

Members have asked questions about how we prosecute people for the misdescription of waste. The first thing we have to do is bring them into this regime, so that we are not reacting when there has been an accidental overloading and breach of permit conditions—I do not want to say it is a crime, because I would not want to prejudge anything.

I have had a long and very interesting conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) about the issue of the landfill gases at the Seletia sites at Hespin Wood and Flusco. As I say, these are horrible gases, and it too, with the same model, has breached the permitted waste, with massive over-dumping at those sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) told the story of his constituent, who was aghast at being dragged into this, and potentially criminalised by an innocent act of trying to do the right thing and get her waste dealt with properly.

I thank everyone for their valuable contributions to the debate. I have issued statutory guidance to councils on how to use their powers to seize and crush vehicles, because we are aware that, although they have the powers, they may not feel confident about using them. We are also working with CrimeStoppers to get the public to be part of the army of people tackling waste crime. If people do see something suspicious, I would ask them please to report it on 0800 555 111—I say that from memory, but I think it is the correct number.

These regulations are vital if we are to tackle waste crime. This change is long overdue for those moving and controlling waste. I thank all my departmental officials in the Box—James Cruddas, David Read and Freya Ballard—and Leena from my private office. The regulations are widely supported by our stakeholders and highly anticipated by our constituents. I thank all those working at the Environment Agency and in police forces across the country on tackling waste criminals and this new form of organised crime.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 20 May, be approved.