Rural Communities
Mary Creagh Excerpts(4 days, 23 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to close this debate. I have to say that even in the deep, bleak midwinter, I do not recognise the gloomy, barren landscape that Conservative Members have been describing. They describe a litany of disasters. If only they had been in government for the last 14 years and been able to do something about them. As I go round our countryside, I see a quite different picture; I see millions of people in rural communities who were taken for granted and underserved by the Conservatives. That is why they kicked the party out at the last general election. We Labour Members are laser-focused on encouraging growth, and Labour is now the party of the countryside. The Conservatives should stop talking the country down and get behind our drive for growth.
Let us look at the inheritance that the Conservatives left local communities: broken public services, boarded-up post offices, crumbling schools and sky-high NHS waiting lists. They have learned no lessons, offered no apologies and shown no contrition, and that is why they were booted out of government. They had a Liz Truss mini-Budget that crashed the economy, sending mortgages, rents and bills soaring. And who was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when food inflation hit 19%? It was the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Mary Creagh
I am not giving way, because I have only eight minutes to respond to the debate.
The Conservatives’ former Prime Minister explicitly said that there was a deliberate policy of taking money away from deprived inner-city areas and giving it to rural areas. This Government are cleaning up the mess that they made, and we have stabilised the economy.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) is not in his place, because I cycled the 25 miles there from the New Forest during the covid lockdowns. He talked a lot about the 61 bus, but he did not mention anything about the rail fare freeze. His constituents will enjoy the freezing of rail fares, as well as the freezing of prescription charges, £150 off energy bills and the driving up of wages. What did the Conservatives do on each of those issues to help people in rural communities? They voted against each and every one of those measures. They left the health service on its knees, our schools were crumbling and they crashed the economy. We have done more in 18 months than they achieved in 14 miserable years, including delivering cheaper mortgages and new rights for workers, and lifting half a million people out of poverty.
I want to come back to bus routes, because under the Conservatives and Lib Dems, bus routes in England declined by 50% after 2010. Some 8,000 services were slashed on their watch. We have taken immediate action through the Bus Services Act, which includes provision to support the socially necessary bus services that are so important in rural areas. I am grateful to have the bus Minister sitting next to me, and we have maintained the national £3 bus fare cap. [Interruption.] Members are shouting from a sedentary position, but there was no cap under the Conservative Government.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) about the problems of rural crime. During the 14 years of Conservative Government the recorded crime rate in rural areas of England and Wales increased by 32%. Our rural communities paid the price for the Tories being asleep on the job, and the 20,000 police officers that they and the Liberal Democrats cut in 2010. We are ensuring that rural communities will be better protected from the scourge of rural crime, such as equipment theft, livestock theft and hare coursing, which we know devastate communities, farming and wildlife. That is why we have collaborated with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Home Office to deliver a renewed rural and wildlife crime strategy, which was published last November.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) asked about waste crime, and I have visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) to see the fly-tipping there. We know that waste crime blights our rural communities and undermines legitimate businesses. The last Government let waste gangs and organised crime groups run riot, with incidents rising by 20% in their last five years, but we have announced what are we going to do.
Mary Creagh
Yes, we are announcing—[Interruption.] The Conservatives consulted on changes in 2018.
Mary Creagh
We are bringing them in this year. We are introducing digital waste tracking—end-to-end tracking. It is going to be operational from April this year; the infrastructure is there.
We are introducing mandatory digital waste tracking, reforming the permitting system—a system that was so loose that Oscar the dog could be a waste carrier—and bringing in tougher background checks for people carrying waste. We will also require vehicles transporting waste to display their permit numbers. This was all prepped, planned and consulted on by the Conservatives, but the action is happening under this Labour Government.
We have heard a lot of talk about the land use framework. We are going to have to change the way we use land, because our landscapes need to change to support climate change mitigation and adaptation, economic growth, housing delivery, food production and clean energy, and to meet our statutory targets for nature recovery. That land use framework will be published later this year.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) talked about “informal” employment relations. I am old enough to remember when the Conservative Government, in coalition with the Lib Dems, abolished the Agricultural Wages Board and the Commission for Rural Communities, and their prime plan for rural prosperity was to sell off the nation’s forests, which was met with uproar in rural communities and was the first U-turn of that coalition Government.
As the Minister for forests, I have visited Hexham and stood among the pines, spruce and firs trees of Kielder forest—a landscape bursting with growth, renewal and vitality. I met the men and women who make that possible, and some of the businesses, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). We also met innovators at Egger in Hexham, one of Northumberland’s largest rural employers, which turns timber into the panels found in homes and workplaces across the country.
We have announced the first new national forest for more than 30 years in Bristol, Swindon and Gloucester in the west of England, and we are not waiting 30 years to announce the next ones. In November last year, we announced the creation of two more national forests. The second will be in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, and a competition will be launched for a third new national forest in the midlands or the north of England in early 2026. Tens of millions of new trees will be planted in the coming years, alongside the new infrastructure and new homes that this country needs.
I want to come to some of the points raised in the debate. I was asked about the Batters review, which had 57 recommendations, by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader), who taught me a new word: “yimfy”. Our priority is to get the implementation of this right, and we are considering all the recommendations. We will set out a detailed response to the Batters review in our 25-year farming road map.
On firearms licensing, the prevention of future deaths report into the fatal shootings in Plymouth said that there were problems in the firearms licensing scheme. The fees for firearms licensing were last reviewed in 2015, so it is important that the additional revenue from firearms licensing is used to—
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
River Cherwell: Clearing Illegal Waste
Mary Creagh Excerpts(5 days, 23 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is lovely to be here with you again to celebrate the new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish you and all colleagues in the House a very happy new year. What a shame it is that we are starting it with the trash from last year.
As we have just celebrated Christmas and the holiday period, we will have seen our bins and recycling facilities overflowing with the Christmas excesses. We have faith in our systems that when that is taken away, it is responsibly dealt with. I therefore thank the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for raising this important issue. I share his anger and the public’s anger about this serious crime and its impact.
Waste crime blights our communities, as I know from my work as a constituency MP in Coventry. Waste criminals damage the environment and, in the worst cases, directly threaten our health, life and limb. These criminals also undermine legitimate businesses and deprive the Exchequer of tax income. That is why the Government are committed to tackling waste crime. We will crack down on the waste criminals and the organised crime groups who have moved into this lucrative space, and we will ensure that they are brought to justice.
I confirm that the criminal investigation into the Kidlington site is moving forward apace. Environment Agency officials, working closely with the police, have taken samples of the waste materials on site for forensic examination. There is a lot we can divine from some of these materials as to where they originated from. Those forensic results will be available by the end of January.
The Environment Agency is working closely alongside partners including Oxfordshire county council, the police and fire and rescue services as part of the site’s strategic co-ordinating group and tactical co-ordinating group. The strategic group has set the overall goals for this major incident, supporting the gold commander with advice, analysis and community links, while the tactical group implements those goals at the scene. The strategic group has local and operational expertise, and it has determined that the scale of the fire risk sets this case apart from the other illegal waste dumps in England. This location presents an overriding public imperative. That is why the Environment Agency took the exceptional decision to clear the waste and why it is working rapidly to implement a safe, systematic and focused clearance plan. It is important to stress that only two other sites have been cleared by the Environment Agency in the past five years: Hoad’s Wood, via a ministerial direction; and Twyford House in Stoke-on-Trent, where lots of flammable liquids were stored close to the west coast main line. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock will see some of the similarities there.
The Environment Agency will continue to closely monitor the site while preparatory work takes place. It has informed me today that prep work will begin shortly and clearance of the waste is expected to start in February. Further timeline updates will follow from the Environment Agency. It is important that the site’s vast amount of waste is handled correctly and moved to the right facilities without causing damage to the environment. The Environment Agency is monitoring risks at the site and will respond promptly to any change in situation.
It is important that people, whether members of the public or well-meaning journalists, do not enter the site. It is an environmental crime scene and climbing on the waste is dangerous. In doing so, people are putting themselves at risk and compromising the criminal investigation, which is a criminal offence in itself. We do not need to add extra problems to the very big one already there. There is now 24-hour surveillance in place.
The Environment Agency’s approach and actions are always based on evidence, and with the containment and clearance, actions were taken in response to a changing risk level and the potential for a rise in the water levels. The Environment Agency was on site within days of receiving photographic evidence from a member of the public and immediately visited the site with the local authority and confirmed it as a high-risk illegal waste site. Over 80% of the waste on site was there before the Environment Agency visited on 2 July, so the vast majority happened before it was alerted. When further waste movements were reported in September, the EA swiftly obtained a restriction order in October.
The current risk of waste entering the river is very low. A barrier has been installed at the site to prevent the waste from entering the river, to safeguard both the environment and public safety in the event of river levels rising or flooding. The Environment Agency has carried out water quality sampling of the River Cherwell to check for potential impacts of run-off or leaching from the waste. Having sampled upstream and downstream of the site, it has found no indication of pollution entering the Cherwell as a result of the waste.
The clear-up of illegal waste sites by the Environment Agency should only be a last resort, undertaken in exceptional circumstances to protect the public and the environment. In accordance with the “polluter pays” principle, criminals who disregard the law, undercut legitimate businesses and blight communities and the environment must pay the penalty—not us as taxpayers. We do not wish to create a perverse incentive for some people to dump, or facilitate the dumping of, waste. It should be for polluters, not taxpayers, to pay the costs of clean-up.
I acknowledge the huge frustrations about the time such an approach takes—I know that from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). In some cases, that can undermine public confidence or create a perception somehow that the matter is not taken seriously or tackled swiftly. As with any police investigation, there is no running commentary provided either by police, law enforcement or Ministers. I can confirm, though, that I am vigorously pursuing all avenues on this and other waste crime sites. We are committed to bearing down on the cynical waste criminals who damage our environment, harm businesses and blight our communities.
I will go through each of the hon. Member’s questions. I request the patience of the House—Madam Deputy Speaker, feel free to cough if I go on too long. I believe we have until 7.30 pm, so strap in! The hon. Member asked how we are tackling the blight on the country caused by waste crime. We are pursuing a series of reforms that will have a lasting impact on reducing waste crime. We are bringing in reforms to the carrier, broker and dealer regimes, which will shrink the number of people who can handle waste. That is the first thing. We are changing the waste permit exemption regimes. At the moment, certain activities do not need a permit and we are shutting down those exemptions. We are also introducing digital waste tracking, which is coming in this year. These are things that I have done as a Minister that have been consulted on as far back as 2018 but have not been enacted by successive Governments. We think these three actions—this pincer movement, if you like—will be the most effective way to drive criminality away from the waste sector, because this is all about knowing the chain of custody for these materials.
Alongside this, we have increased the Environment Agency’s budget for waste crime enforcement by over 50% this year to £15.6 million. This is the investigatory part of what the EA does, and it includes issues involving misdescribed waste, waste shipments and all the difficult business. This work is very time consuming and painstaking because it has to be done to a criminal standard of proof that will stand up in a court of law. I want to go into a bit more detail about this. These reforms were deprioritised and stalled, but under this Government they are being accelerated.
Mandatory digital waste tracking will replace outdated methods for monitoring waste movements and unify fragmented processes. It will provide a single comprehensive view of waste types, waste quantities and waste destinations. The lack of digital record keeping in the waste industry is frequently exploited by organised criminals, who undercut legitimate businesses through mishandling waste, illegal exports and simple fly-tipping. Data in the new system will help regulators to check that waste is ending up at legitimate, licensed sites and enable the quicker investigation of illegal activity. This digital waste tracking system is being phased in this year, beginning with the introduction of a system for waste receiving sites—for example, landfills—and with planned expansion to other waste operators such as waste carriers in 2027, subject to further funding.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to the Minister for sharing with the House this important step forward. We are talking about these issues going back to 2018, and it just worries me that if this had been done before, some of the issues that I have hassled her about in relation to Walleys Quarry since I was elected to this place in July 2024 could have been dealt with a lot sooner. This raises many questions about the impact on my constituents back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme under the previous Government, who were clearly missing in action. We can discuss this further outside this House.
Mary Creagh
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s assiduousness on the issue of Walleys Quarry. That site is also now being run by the Environment Agency, and the risk of odour that his constituents were really grievously suffering is now extremely low, but that has come at a cost, as he rightly says.
This is nothing new. When there is a problem and no action is taken and no new policy is created, these illegal businesses think, “Well, it’s a victimless crime, so I can carry on making money.” Then they tell their friends and, guess what, soon many flowers are blooming. But they are the wrong sort of flowers, and this creates incentives. Then of course, the legitimate businesses are like, “Hang on, why am I paying all these fees if all I need to do is buy a field, dig it up and dump stuff in it?” This creates disincentives for legitimate operators as well. I am only too aware of this. It was starting post-2016 when the then Government were focused on leaving the EU and the large international issues. I was chairing the Environmental Audit Committee at the time and I was always worried about what was going to happen to waste, including chemical waste, once we put up a border with our nearest neighbours.
Secondly, we will reform waste management and transport. Instead of the current light-touch registration system, it will now be a permitted system. We will move on from a system that was so lax that people were able to sign up Oscar the dead dog to be a waste carrier. Activists were doing that back in 2018-19, so we have known about these problems. Anyone can falsify a bit of paper. We will introduce tougher background checks for operators and tougher penalties for those who break the law.
We will also require vehicles that transport waste—the man with the van—to display their permit numbers on their vehicles and on their advertising, so service users can be reassured that their waste is being handled by an accredited business rather than criminals. The reform will introduce mandatory technical competence for all permit holders, meaning that anyone transporting or making decisions about waste will have to demonstrate that they are competent to do so, rather than simply just going on a register. Waste will be managed by authorised persons only and in a safe manner.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am fascinated and happy to hear what is being proposed. Will it be possible for members of the public to check an online database for that permit? When somebody picks something up from a house and shows their permit, people can feel quite vulnerable. Being able to go online and check the permit against the local authority or central database would give people a lot more confidence.
Mary Creagh
I will get back to the hon. Member on that, if I may. The point of a digital waste tracking system is that everything is digitised. The problem has been that it is a paper-based register, so how can people check it at the moment? My understanding is that the move is to a digital system, but I will get back to her. I do not want to mislead her or the House. Perhaps Box officials can enlighten us while I go through the third reform of the waste permit exemptions.
Thirdly, there are exemptions for three high-risk areas: end of life vehicles—that is, car scrappage—end of life tyres and scrap metal. Those exemptions have long caused problems and have been abused. We will replace them with a requirement for a full environmental permit for all those activities. We will introduce greater record keeping requirements for all waste exemption holders and impose controls on how exemptions can be managed at one site.
At the moment, there are seven waste exemptions: construction waste, preparatory treatments, treatment of waste wood, manual treatment, burning vegetation at the place of production only—that is essentially for farmers—storage in containers and storage in a safe place. As I have mentioned, we have increased the waste crime investigation unit budget. It now has 43 full-time staff.
People have often asked me about enabling the Environment Agency to use environmental permit income to tackle waste crime. Rules are set out by the Treasury in “Managing Public Money” about how the income raised by public bodies may be used. These rules ensure transparency to us as parliamentarians and ensure that fees and charges are not set higher than necessary to cover activity that should be properly funded from taxation. We instead look to innovative ideas, and the EA has consulted on the implementation of a 10% levy to generate a further £3.2 million of waste enforcement funding each year. That would enable a further 30% increase in enforcement activity to be targeted at activities identified by the EA as waste crime priorities. Those include tackling organised crime groups, increasing enforcement activity around specific areas of concern such as landfill sites, closing down illegal sites more quickly, using intelligence more effectively and delivering successful major criminal investigations.
Calum Miller
I am grateful to the Minister for such a comprehensive response. On the question of funding, the £15.6 million in the budget this year for tackling waste crime, as she said, is for the officers who engage in investigation, but it still strikes me as a small amount of money, with 43 officers for a crime that is now taking place up and down the country. Can she clarify whether the additional £5.6 million is now permanently in that budget and will be going forward such that the additional funds she has referred to for permitting will be over and above that sum? Fundamentally, does she think that this is enough?
Mary Creagh
My aim is not to spend further taxpayers’ money on crime; my aim is to stop it happening in the first place. All budget decisions are subject to the normal business planning, but we hope that, through our three-year spending review, we can give the Environment Agency a three-year or indicative settlement that will enable it to plan, rather than the annual process of, “Up this year, down next year,” so that there will be long-range line-of-sight planning. As I say, the EA is consulting at the moment on the additional extra revenue. If that goes through, there would be a funding uplift.
I have the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade): we are happy to confirm that it is already possible to check the online database for permits, so that is good news there.
I have mentioned the different reforms and I think I have answered all the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I am pretty much coming to the end of my speech. On steps taken since 11 December and his specific question about the rise in water level of up to two metres, equivalent to the peak recorded at Thrupp in November ’24, the waste is within a large floodplain that can store a substantial volume of water during heavy rain. The EA has carried out more detailed flood risk assessment to understand any changes in water levels due to the illegal waste and has determined that there will not be any increased flood risk to local properties. My understanding is that sandbags and a fence are there in order to protect the river.
The EA has also carried out regular water quality sampling of the river to check for impacts of run-off or leaching and has found no indication of pollution. If any pollutants were found in the watercourse, the action would depend on the nature and type of the pollutants found.
On fire risk at the site, EA officials have been working with the fire and rescue service, which is leading on monitoring the temperatures of the waste and planning appropriately. The fire risk was one of the main reasons that an exceptional decision was taken to progress works to clear the site entirely.
Analysis on how the site would be cleared, including ecology surveys, has been carried out with partners and the Environment Agency to get contracts in place as soon as possible, but we need to follow legal process to ensure that the waste is disposed of correctly. The clearance timetable is being finalised and will shortly be published on the EngagementHQ website. As I said, we hope that clearance will begin in February. Early indications and scoping indicate that full clearance will take approximately six to nine months. Where possible, we are seeking to recover our costs from those responsible in accordance with the legislation and the “polluter pays” principle, and the EA is working with the economic crime unit to target the finances of waste criminals. That unit can freeze bank accounts, seize assets and investigate cases of money laundering linked to waste crime.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out so clearly how seriously she is taking this issue, which will be of continued reassurance to people back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme. In many examples, waste crime is rural crime, such as in the example from the constituency of the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and for me back home. The Minister talks about working together—can she touch a little bit more on the importance of co-operation and partnership work with the Home Office to make sure that we are getting that right? Clearly, in many communities up and down the country, people think that they can get away with doing whatever they want in rural communities, where there are fewer people around. We have to make sure that we tighten that up quickly.
Mary Creagh
I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the things that I am very interested in exploring is what the playbook is. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock asked who such things should be reported to, and the problem is that if that is not clear, people do nothing. The most important thing when any crime is being carried out, wherever it is happening—whether that is on the Tube or wherever we see things happening—is for us as citizens to do something. That might be reporting it to the council, the local police or the Environment Agency, whose hotline is 0800 807060—I thank my officials for getting that through so that it is on the public record.
The playbook is important. Once something has been reported, what does the local authority, the police or the EA do? What is the definition of “major site”? I have visited sites, including Watery Lane in Staffordshire, where two vanloads of fly-tipping was not classified as a major problem, and it fell to the local authority to clear it. People were locked in their homes physically unable to leave via the road—an absolutely extraordinary position for people to find themselves in. What is the playbook, what are the definitions and where do national agencies step in?
The Environment Agency expects to fund the clearance efforts by making efficiencies in its operations, without impacting on or scaling back any other services. The EA is not funded to clear up waste sites nationally, however, and makes these types of decisions only in exceptional circumstances.
The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock asked about additional landfill tax revenue. The waste crime survey that the EA has carried out indicates that 20% of waste is handled illegally. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that 23% of landfill tax is evaded, contributing to an annual waste crime cost of roughly £1 billion a year, including a £150 million landfill tax gap, which is 23% of the theoretical liability—I hope that everyone can understand that. That £1 billion a year shows that this is big business. It is a profitable and lucrative business, and we are all paying. We are paying twice, because we are losing the £1 billion and then clearing up the waste, so it is a double whammy for us—it is maddening.
Calum Miller
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out those figures so clearly. That was the point that I was driving at in addressing the budget for waste crime. It is not so much that I or anybody else wants to spend money dealing with criminals, but a relatively modest investment in detection and investigation could yield a higher proportion of that missing tax. We lose £1 billion every year, but a relatively modest increase in the waste crime unit’s budget, or the National Crime Agency doing more, could potentially bring in more of that revenue, which should be used for the benefit of all taxpayers.
Mary Creagh
I am in passionate agreement with the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure is everyone in the Chamber and watching at home. I would say, however, that big businesses use all available resources to protect their income. They are sophisticated businesses—some are registered companies—and they have their own ways of making life difficult for law enforcement. We are in a bit of a David and Goliath situation. They have been very good at doing that. This is a complex crime, and it takes a while to unravel.
We continue to work with the Treasury on the best approach to fiscal policies to tackle and reduce waste crime. The joint unit for waste crime is a UK-wide partnership, working with the Environment Agency, HMRC, the National Crime Agency, the police and others. It shares intelligence, powers and resources to disrupt waste criminals. The unit, which was launched in 2024 and uses proceeds of crime action and asset freezes, has doubled in size thanks to our extra funding. Anyone with intelligence about waste crime can report it to Crimestoppers on 0800 555111.
My message to our constituents around the country is that waste crime is an absolute top priority for the Government. My message to the waste criminals is we are coming for you and we are going to shut you down. My message to the legitimate waste operators is thank you for your work maintaining safe, healthy and clean environments in our towns and putting pride in our places. Let us all ensure that we work together to create a truly circular economy in which this sort of terrible crime is unthinkable and its perpetrators are put out of business.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mary Creagh Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Poor air quality harms health, and it does not affect all communities equally. Our new environmental improvement plan sets a new target to cut exposure to harmful particles by nearly one third by 2030. We will deliver that by modernising industrial permitting, consulting on tighter standards for new wood-burning appliances, streamlining the assessment of harmful particles in the planning system, and exploring options to reduce emissions from small industrial combustion plants.
Kate Osamor
The Government’s policy to strengthen standards for new waste incinerators to receive planning approval was a step in the right direction. However, it was no comfort for my constituents, whose health will be impacted by the massive new Edmonton incinerator, which is currently being built. Can I urge the Government to take further action to reduce the incentive for waste authorities to continue to rely on incineration for decades to come?
Mary Creagh
Our future circular economy growth plan and interventions will seek to go beyond recycling and drive circularity in our waste streams, reducing the amount of waste that is sent for incineration and, crucially, to landfill. That is on top of the reforms we are delivering to simplify recycling for all households and businesses, including introducing food waste collections from next April and encouraging reduced and recyclable packaging.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister referred to wood stoves. Many people use wood stoves, especially those living on farms, where trees fall. It seems logical to give them the opportunity to use that resource in a sensible way. The policy that is being followed may not be fair to those who have committed themselves to using wood stoves. Has the Minister any thoughts on how their concerns can be addressed?
Mary Creagh
The hon. Member is absolutely right; wood burners are an important way for some households to heat their homes. Our upcoming consultation will focus on tighter standards for new wood-burning appliances to help reduce health impacts.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Mr Speaker, I am sorry; I forgot to wish a happy Christmas to you, your staff, everyone in the Chamber and all the House staff who look after us so well.
Extended producer responsibility moves recycling costs from taxpayers on to packaging producers, making businesses pay their fair share. In October 2024, the Government published a full assessment of the impact of the scheme. It supports systematic change and is part of our reforms, which will create 25,000 new jobs and see £10 billion of investment from the waste sector over the next 10 years.
Peter Fortune
Mr Speaker, I would never forget to wish you and your exemplary staff a merry Christmas—I thank the Minister for the reminder.
The British Beer and Pub Association has estimated that because of EPR, the cost to brewers just for glass bottles alone is somewhere near £124 million annually. That is the equivalent of a 12% rise in beer duty. This, coupled with the Government’s disastrous jobs tax, is leaving pubs in my constituency in a perilous position, wiping out any profit on a bottle of beer. What will the Minister do to resolve this issue and other issues around EPR, to help protect the nearly 1,000 jobs in the 36 pubs across Bromley and Biggin Hill?
Mary Creagh
We have had some very good news on food inflation and the cost of living being reduced, so inflation is down. I am concerned that the hon. Member has some memory loss, because under the Conservatives a pub or bar closed every 14 hours. We are working closely with the industry to tackle concerns around the dual use of packaging, and we have held workshops with them. EPR fees only apply to drinks sold in bottles; they do not apply to pints of beer poured in pubs or wine sold by the glass, so I do hope that this will not stop the pubs in his constituency enjoying a festive Christmas.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Absolutely not. This is a very new policy, and BNG remains a legal requirement. These changes are targeted and proportionate and have been consulted on, and what the hon. Gentleman omits to say is that we are introducing BNG into nationally significant infrastructure projects for the first time. On a net basis, we think the market will continue and thrive.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Merry Christmas to all, Mr Speaker.
Over the Christmas break, many of us across the constituency will enjoy getting out for a good walk in nature. I am particularly pleased that our Labour Government have confirmed that the first new national forest for 30 years, the Western forest, will be planted across our region, making it even easier for more people to do that in future. Will the Minister please set out how the early stages of the programme are progressing, and share more about the plans for this new forest and the benefits it will bring for local people?
Mary Creagh
The hot news is that the Secretary of State has planted an oak tree there and I have planted an apple tree there, so I feel that as a Department, we have done our bit. It is a brilliant forest providing lots of different ecosystem services, from agroforestry to increasing access for local people and, critically, preventing flooding. The initial sites include Pucklechurch in Gloucestershire, and when it is completed, the forest will serve over 2.5 million residents, bringing trees much closer to where they live.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Last week I visited Ball Corporation, the leading global manufacturer of sustainable aluminium packaging, at its head office in my constituency. What steps is the Department taking to improve recycling of prime aluminium in the form of cans in the UK, to help support jobs in the UK’s circular economy?
Mary Creagh
Our simpler recycling reforms are all about creating clean streams of recyclable material. I was delighted to see some of the investment that is going in when I opened a new chemical recycling facility for plastics in Amber Valley, which can produce food-grade plastics. I hope that much more investment is to come, because aluminium is infinitely recyclable.
Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility
Mary Creagh Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing the debate, and thank hon. Members from across the House who have made valuable contributions today. I am struck by the cross-party consensus. This is the first time we have welcomed a Reform MP—the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin)—to these discussions.
Let us remember that these are the biggest changes to recycling policy since the landfill tax was introduced in 2002, under the last Labour Government. The changes were introduced with cross-party consensus. All parties support what this Government are trying to do. Indeed, the changes are the continuation of much of the policy of the previous Government, but there have been some important changes—we have certainly not done the seven bins that they proposed in the Environment Act 2021.
EPR for packaging is the cornerstone of the recycling reforms. The reforms are designed to drive up the recycling rate to 55% over the next 10 years. The rate has languished at 42% since about 2015, despite what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said. The reforms will increase the quality and quantity of the recycling that local councils collect, support sustainable growth in the UK waste management and reprocessing sector, and reduce our reliance on materials imported from overseas.
We have just come back from the conference of the parties in Belém. The negotiations galvanised all nations to take steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and our impact on the planet. Think globally, act locally—this is our local action.
EPR moves recycling costs from us as taxpayers to the packaging producers. It works alongside other reforms to create systematic change. Simpler recycling in England will make recycling easier and more consistent. From 1 April, we will be able to recycle the same materials, including glass, whether at home, work or school. That will change the quality of the material streams to enable us to move to the much more circular economy that we all want to see.
Mary Creagh
I am going to make some progress, because otherwise we are never going to get through this.
We have already provided £340 million to local councils in England alone, in particular to bring in food waste collection. That is particularly important, because it will allow us to create green gas and digestate, which we can use as fertiliser. We have to move away from the high-input fertilisers we use now.
In this space, pEPR has an important role to play. It will divert packaging from residual waste into recycling. We estimate that the policy will save 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and about £189 million in emissions. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower spoke about growth. These reforms will support a thriving economy. As a result of these reforms, the waste management sector has committed to create 25,000 new jobs and invest more than £10 billion in the economy. Circular industries, keeping products and materials in circulation for as long as possible, now deliver £67 billion each year to our economy, and growth in this sector is more than double the rate of the overall UK economy.
We have heard concerns, which I shall address quickly. We have met with glass producers—I can go through the list of the meetings. Basically, glass, due to its durability, is uniquely placed to take advantage of the generous financial incentives pEPR provides for reuse, because reusable containers only attract a fee the first time they are used.
The Government recognise the value of the glass sector to the economy and have provided direct support to four of the major container glass manufacturers—Encirc is one of them—through the British industry supercharger scheme to ensure they remain competitive in a global market. I have some details here about how much they are going to save. Four glass companies are in receipt of this support and the package of measures is estimated to save eligible companies around £24 to £31 per MWh and reduce electricity costs so they are more closely aligned with their key international competitors. That is designed to reduce the risk of carbon leakage and help them to compete on the international stage.
Yesterday’s Budget was mentioned. For pEPR, the Chancellor has announced consulting on proposed changes to the packaging recycling note scheme; consulting on options to drive transformation of local authority waste management and ensuring the accountability of pEPR funding. I have written to local authorities, as well as to PackUK, to reassert the need for this money to be spent on collecting packaging waste and not on cross-subsidising other areas of local authority spending; and appointing producer leadership of the scheme by March next year to give industry a central role in running the scheme.
In the hospitality sector, we are publishing a national licensing policy framework, asking licensing authorities in England and Wales to consider the need to promote growth and deliver economic benefits in their decisions; we are appointing a retail and hospitality envoy to champion and deliver these changes; and we are making a commitment to explore changes to the planning framework to make it easier for hospitality businesses to grow.
We heard a lot about the brilliant small businesses in MPs’ constituencies. For small businesses, we have some of the most generous exemptions of any scheme in the world. Businesses with a turnover below £2 million or that place less than 50 tonnes of packaging on the market are not obligated to pay pEPR fees or recycling obligations. The exemptions mean that 70% of UK businesses that supply packaging are not obligated under this scheme. We have also heard about issues around the bills and the paying of the bills. To help larger businesses that are obligated, PackUK is offering quarterly payment options to help with cash flow. PackUK will watch the thresholds carefully, knowing that raising them would push costs on to the remaining businesses as local authority collection costs stay the same.
We have been listening to feedback so we have adapted our approach. This time last year, we were working tirelessly with the Environment Agency to bring so-called free riders into compliance—people who were putting glass on the market but had not actually registered with anybody anywhere. That increased the total tonnage of material registered in the scheme and enabled us to reduce the final fees, so the reduction of the base fees for 2025 actually went down by up to 38%, depending on the material.
Let me talk quickly about steel. I met with the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association in September, and officials are following up on that. I am very conscious of the need, when the new arc furnace comes on stream, to make sure that we have a steady supply of scrap steel to enable it to stay in continuous production.
We are also engaging with stakeholders to develop the approach to in-scope packaging. We are looking at household packaging that is sometimes disposed of in business waste—for example, beer and wine bottles can be disposed of in pub bins.
We are looking at changing the recycling assessment methodology for next year to address complex composite packaging, which is really hard to recycle—particularly foil packages, which may have plastic on the inside and may contain paper. I talked to local authorities about that only this week, and we hope to bring forward a solution as soon as possible.
[Christine Jardine in the Chair]
Andy Slaughter
The Minister has a deep understanding of this issue, and we all support the objectives that she is aiming for, but obviously we have come along to bring our problems to her. I hope she will not mind dealing with the two issues that have been raised: double charging for pubs, which is estimated to cost them £50 million, and the fee for glass—the weight versus volume equation—which is estimated to cost brewers £124 million a year. Those are real costs to businesses, many of which are up against the margins and are dealing with other pressures in the hospitality industry.
Mary Creagh
I thank my hon. Friend for his follow-up questions. Several colleagues have raised the issue of cost being calculated by weight and not by unit, but waste management costs are largely driven by weight. We have taken into account other factors that influence collection costs, including the estimated volume of each material in bins and collection vehicles. Glass is a heavy material with a low resale value. A unit of glass packaging costs more for a local authority to manage as waste than an item made up of more lightweight and high-value material. Our recycling assessment methodology changes are published on defra.gov.uk, so people can see the changes that we are proposing to bring in next year and how we are ramping up the fees payable for less recyclable packaging.
Reuse and refill of packaging provides a real opportunity for economic growth and job creation. Earlier this year, GoUnpackaged produced economic modelling that made a compelling case for scaling up reuse in UK grocery retail. That work showed end-to-end system cost savings of up to £577 million a year, highlighting the economic viability of reuse in the UK. In response to that research, major grocery retailers have committed to working together to scale reusable packaging systems. Innovate UK has commissioned a scoping study to develop the blueprint for the first wave of this bold multi-retailer reuse scheme, so change will be coming in this sector pretty fast.
Dr Hudson
The Minister is talking about economic viability. I mentioned that the Government said in the Budget yesterday that they will consult on the EPR scheme, and she has repeated that. The Conservatives are calling for an urgent review. A consultation is not good enough; proverbially, that just kicks the steel can down the track. Will the Government commit to an urgent review so that businesses do not suffer in the coming months?
Mary Creagh
There are two things at play here. One is the recycling assessment methodology. The proposed changes for year two of the scheme are on the website already, and we will be legislating for them. I held a roundtable with packaging producers in July, and we spent the summer looking at different options. People have mentioned the different fees in Germany. Germany has a very large reliance on bring sites, so people bring their glass bottles to a place; they are not collected from the home. It is our household waste collection that makes our fees necessarily higher.
We have looked at dual-use packaging, and various proposals have been put forward, but not a single proposal had unanimous agreement. We are trying to hold the ring between packaging producers, microbreweries, supermarkets and local waste authorities. There is no simple solution to this complex problem—[Interruption.] It is hard. The previous Government devised and put forward legislation on this, and, of course, as soon as that is brought in, all the issues with it come out. We are working on that and we are meeting with them. In my box, I have a submission on proposals for how we carry on looking at that, so today’s debate will genuinely feed into my decision making on it.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution I referred to DAERA in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister engage with them—I know she probably does already—so that we can work together on progress going forward?
Mary Creagh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. I know that one of the issues in Northern Ireland is doing the behaviour change and driving up recycling rates. Communication is one of the most important things, and I take on board the official Opposition’s comments about the communications on this issue. It is incredibly complicated; civil servants are dealing with a massive change programme and everyone is trying to say what matters and how it changes.
Through the simpler recycling reforms, we are asking for everyone to be able to recycle the same things in every local authority and every workplace across the country. That is a massive system change, so there will be some confusion. There will need to be management and communication of that change, and for that we are essentially reliant on our local authority partners to get those messages across. I think I am meeting with Minister Muir shortly—we meet quite a lot to discuss these issues.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) told a story about his grandchildren. In 2002, when we brought in the landfill tax, we had one bin—it was a black bin, and everything went in it—and the question was, “Is this ever going to work? Will recycling ever happen?”. I take great encouragement from the fact that when we tell people, “This is your bit. This is what you can do locally in your home and your kitchen to help to tackle climate change and reduce carbon emissions,” the vast majority of people want to do the right thing—even, like the hon. Gentleman, by going and picking out the things out of the bin that should be recycled; and if he has not done it, then his grandchildren will do it for him. There are a lot of encouraging stories of hope that we can tell here.
We are looking at the German model and the Austrian model as part of how we might develop on these issues in the future. This package of measures will be the foundation for unlocking the transition to a circular economy in the UK. We hope to publish our circular economy plan in short order. Everything that is in our bins affects us, but we need to look at textiles, construction and waste electricals—there are huge volumes of materials flowing through the economy that we are not capturing.
Sarah Dyke
I want to push the Minister on the plight of our struggling hospitality sector. I asked if she could consider exempting pubs from the EPR scheme at this stage to give a chance to review the scheme and help support our struggling hospitality sector.
Mary Creagh
I have to be brief. As I say, we are keeping all our policies under review. The EPR scheme will not be sorted out quickly—it only went live in October, and here we are in November, asking for a big change. We have also heard that businesses need certainty, so I do not want to set any hares running by saying, “This is all going to change next year.” We need to do it in slow time, by consensus and by working with industry. I thank Members for their valuable contributions to the debate; this feedback will genuinely help us to create a fair transition to a circular economy, as we continue with these important reforms and build a world where the UK leads in innovation and sustainability.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mary Creagh Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
The Government will clean up Britain and end the throwaway society. That is why we banned the sale of single-use vapes earlier this year and why our forthcoming deposit return scheme will drastically reduce the littering of single-use cans and bottles. We are also supporting councils by bringing forward new guidance, including on enforcement on littering and fly-tipping.
Catherine Atkinson
In Derby, we are lucky to have fantastic community groups who take real pride in keeping our city clean, such as Friends of Littleover Parks, the New Zealand Community Association, and the Ashbourne Road Methodist church A2C kids club, where even our youngest residents do their bit. But their great work is too often undermined by those who dump waste illegally on our streets, on private land and on our green spaces. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to tackle waste crime, so that my constituents can continue to enjoy clean and tidy neighbourhoods?
Mary Creagh
I commend my hon. Friend’s constituents for their important work, particularly Derby city council’s Streetpride champions. Their work is supported by this Government, who are committed to helping councils to do more: seizing and crushing the vehicles of fly-tippers; forcing fly-tippers to clear up their own mess; and bringing in new five-year prison sentences for those transporting waste illegally.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Criminals have dumped a mountain of illegal plastic waste, 20 feet high and weighing hundreds of tonnes, in my constituency on the floodplain adjacent to the River Cherwell. River levels are rising and heat maps show that the waste is heating up, raising the risk of fire. The Environment Agency says that it has limited resources for enforcement, and the estimated cost of removal is greater than the entire annual budget of the local district council. Will the Minister meet me urgently to discuss what support the Government can offer to avoid an environmental disaster?
Mary Creagh
We inherited a whole system failure in the waste industry, from end to end with failures at every level. That is why there has been an epidemic of illegal fly-tipping. It is now the work of serious and organised crime. We have a waste crime unit that has undertaken in the last financial year—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members stop chuntering they might learn something. It has undertaken 21 money laundering investigations, six account-freezing orders and 13 confiscation orders. However, I am aware of this incident and I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it. I understand that a restriction order was served to prevent further access and tipping at the site.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
This Government are putting the largest budget ever towards nature restoration, with more than £7 billion announced in the spending review. We have taken targeted action, including licensing the first wild beaver release since their extinction 400 years ago.
Liam Conlon
Fourteen years of Conservative government have left the UK as one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, undermining our economy and food systems. I welcome the Government’s recent actions to reverse this, including the new guidance to protect bees from pesticides and the introduction of legislation to help protect two thirds of the world’s oceans. Does the Minister agree that where the Conservatives have failed, this Government will take action at every level to protect nature and biodiversity for future generations?
Mary Creagh
I do agree. I know that my hon. Friend is a great champion on air quality in his constituency. While the Conservatives have pledged to scrap the Climate Change Act 2008 in the face of protest from business groups, scientists and even their former Prime Minister Theresa May, this Government will tackle the climate and nature crisis. I will be travelling to COP30 in Brazil in a couple of days, where I will discuss how we will embed nature into every element of climate action to tackle global nature loss on land and in the ocean.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
This afternoon, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will return to the Commons. I share the concern of many of my that the Bill seeks to rip up environmental rules to boost growth. Will the Minister urge her colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support Lords amendment 113, to ensure that development is balanced with protection for nature?
Mary Creagh
I thank the hon. Lady for campaigning on climate and nature issues, in stark contrast with the Conservatives. I know that she will raise this issue during today’s debate. The nature restoration fund, which is a key plank of the Bill, will improve outcomes for nature, while unlocking the housing and infrastructure that this country urgently needs.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
We are committed to banning the import of hunting trophies from species of conservation concern. My noble friend Baroness Hayman continues to engage with stakeholders to ensure that we can implement a robust ban.
Liz Jarvis
Vulnerable and endangered species, including rhinos, zebras, elephants, cheetahs and leopards, are still being hunted for so-called trophies abroad, and despite promises from the previous Government, it is still legal to bring those items into the UK. Will the Minister give any reassurance that legislation will be brought forward in this Parliament to ban the import of those hunting trophies to the UK?
Mary Creagh
Some 84% of the 44,000 respondents to the 2020 consultation supported a ban on all hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK. Five years later, it will fall to this Government to deliver what the previous Government promised. Timeframes for introducing that legislation will be provided once the parliamentary timetable for future Sessions is determined.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
We are committed to tackling food waste and ensuring that food reaches those in greatest need. We have a new £15 million fund redistributing 19,000 tonnes of surplus food, and our simpler recycling reforms, which will come in from next March, will cut the amount of food waste sent to landfill. We hope that behaviour-change initiatives will also tackle food waste in the home.
Dame Meg Hillier
Too Good To Go and Winnow Solutions are two food waste businesses in my constituency at the heart of tackling food waste. I know that the Government do not want to put more burdens on business, but the companies I mention have proved that tackling food waste can save businesses’ bottom line. Is the Minister considering mandatory reporting of food waste, and promoting companies that help other businesses to tackle food waste?
Mary Creagh
Those are two absolutely brilliant green tech companies at the heart of my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are committed to halving food waste by 2030, and we support both those companies. Digital waste tracking will be in place from April 2026, and will be mandatory from October for waste receivers. That is part of tackling the organised crime end of things. Our circular economy taskforce is considering how we can go further and the potential benefits of a mandatory food waste reporting requirement for large food businesses.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Mr Speaker, you and I—and many others in this House—will remember that when we were younger, nothing was ever thrown out. When the cheese had blue mould, we cut off the edges and ate it. If food was coming near to the end of its time, the dog got it. Nothing was ever wasted. “Best before” dates on fresh food encourage judgment to be exercised before food is thrown out. Has consideration been given to making them law, to ensure that we do not throw away good food for no other reason than the date, which has no relevance to the quality of the food?
Mary Creagh
To be fair, the previous Government did something on food labelling and “best before” dates. There are certain rules around items such as eggs, about which we have to be much more careful. However, I share the hon. Gentleman’s view. We need to remove some of the packaging, so that people do not over-buy. We also need to teach people more about how to tackle food waste in their home, so that they do not buy more than they need, and they understand that they can freeze things like butter and cheese when they want to buy in bulk and save money.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for ensuring good air quality for residents of his constituency. We have published strict criteria for incineration projects, and will back only new waste incineration projects that meet strict conditions. I am happy to meet him to talk about the project in his constituency.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Tree Maintenance: Guidance to Local Authorities
Mary Creagh Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship today, Ms Lewell. I commend the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this debate, and thank other hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions.
Let me begin by saying how incredibly sorry and sad I am to hear about Mr Hall’s death. I offer my profound sympathies to his family—to Fiona, his wife, and to Sam, his son—on their tragic loss, as well as to other families who have lost loved ones in similar circumstances. I also pay tribute to their courage and commitment in their selfless campaigning to reduce the risk of other families suffering such a grievous tragedy. We are all here today to think about how we can prevent that from happening to anybody else. Nothing we can say today can make up for their loss, but it is right that we are having this debate.
Health and safety matters to everyone in this country, and this Government are dedicated to protecting people. The Health and Safety Executive is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety; it works to ensure that people feel safe where they live, where they work and in their environment. It prosecuted Cheshire East council over Mr Hall’s tragic death, which led to the £500,000 fine.
When those responsible for controlling risks to public safety fail to do so, they will be held to account. As in this case, the Health and Safety Executive will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action where necessary, but I do not want us to be in that position. Local authorities, just like any landowner, must ensure that the land they own or occupy is not in a condition that could cause injury or damage to people who might reasonably be expected to enter it. They must not allow activities or conditions on their land that could foreseeably cause harm. If someone is injured due to negligence, the authority may be liable, as was the case with Mr Hall’s death.
There is current guidance available from the National Tree Safety Group, the membership of which is made up of organisations with an interest in tree risk management, including the Forestry Commission. Its publication, “Common sense risk management of trees”, was updated last year, and provides guidance on trees and public safety in the UK for owners, managers and advisers. It recommends that tree owners follow a plan for zoning their tree stock, based on frequency of access, and implementing tree management according to risk. Where trees pose a higher level of risk—for example, a tree with faults that likely make it unstable, such as the oak described by the right hon. Lady, that is in an area frequently visited by the public, such as a park—they will require a higher level of assessment and monitoring.
I have visited parks where veteran trees have been cordoned off. Cordoning off very large trees with known defects from public access during periods of very hot weather, when branches may be more likely to fall, and similarly advising the public not to sit under or next to such trees when wind speeds are higher than normal, is a sensible, common-sense response to changing conditions.
Trees are important to our society and to us intrinsically —we come from the forests—and they are particularly important in this changing climate. However, that does not absolve tree owners from their legal duty of care and the need to prevent reasonably foreseeable risks of injury to people or property. For the breach of its responsibilities leading to Mr Hall’s death, the council was handed a significant fine.
I agree with the right hon. Lady that maintenance and prevention are cost effective. This Government have given more money to councils. There has been a long period of reduction in council budgets, but we have made more than £69 billion available to local government, and Cheshire East, the council in question, has had a 6.6% cash terms increase in its core spending power on the previous year. The majority of the funding is un-ringfenced—we removed central Government controls on that—and can be used to address a range of pressures facing local government. I hope that some of it will have been spent on long-overdue tree maintenance work.
As mentioned, National Tree Safety Group guidance provides a nationally recognised, evidence-based framework for managing tree safety, balancing public safety with the environmental and social benefits of trees. It is grounded in legal precedent and supported by the Health and Safety Executive. Local tree strategies, such as the one in Bromley, play an important role. I encourage councils to use the existing Government-endorsed trees and woodlands strategy toolkit, which has been developed to support local authorities and stakeholders to create and deliver a local tree strategy. These strategies can help to safeguard people from harm. However, it is also important to remember that trees are living organisms and that things can change depending on the weather. They undergo natural processes of growth and development, and eventually fall.
As the right hon. Lady says, we are spending a record £816 million on tree planting. Many of those trees will be in forests, so that involves a different set of risks and limited public access. However, we need to think about street or park trees. I live in Islington, which was planting street trees back in the ’90s. I can think of two street trees, one in my street and one in the neighbouring street, that have fallen over in the past three years. Thankfully, they landed on walls and not on cars or people, but of course from one day to the next, they simply go—often in very hot weather.
As we increase canopy cover, we need to understand what we are doing. We are giving grants to local authorities, but what is the accountability mechanism? As with flood defence assets, it is no good building the asset if we are not going to look after it. Flood defence assets were not in good shape when we came in, so we have spent a lot of extra money—tens of millions—to make sure that fail-safe mechanisms are put in place and that assets are kept up to date.
Sarah Dyke
On tree canopy cover, I was lead member for environment and climate change at Somerset council when it was developing the tree strategy. The county is 8% tree canopy—way below the national average, which is about 13%. Obviously, increased canopy cover helps to reduce storm water run-off, prevent flooding, and improve biodiversity and habitats for local wildlife. Will the Minister commit to setting targets for neighbourhood tree cover to help to ensure equal resilience to flooding and stronger biodiversity in areas with below-average tree canopy cover?
Mary Creagh
Of course, the hon. Member’s area is benefiting, under this Government, from the first national forest to be planted for 30 years. The Western forest will stretch from the Mendip hills up to Bristol, Gloucester—for the flood prevention—and the Forest of Dean, so there will be a huge increase. [Interruption.] She has quite a bit in her area, I hear her say—good. The canopy cover will increase there, with 20 million trees planted over the next 25 years. Some of that will be agroforestry and some restoration of ancient woodland.
Esther McVey
I know that the Minister cares passionately and knows a lot about this issue. Would she meet me and my constituent so that we can discuss Chris’s law?
Mary Creagh
The right hon. Lady is correct to bring me back to my conclusion. We have got five minutes, so I had a little tour via the Western Forest. On the point about 13% coverage, we are trying to get to 16% over the country by 2050. That has been a cross-party agreement under the Climate Change Act 2008 on the number of trees we need to plant to tackle climate change. It is important to look at tree access and tree equity as part of that. That is certainly in my processes as I think about where the next two national forests are going to be.
Let me bring this debate to an end. I thank the right hon. Lady for the debate and for bringing this tragic incident to my attention. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage local authorities to follow our guidance on tree risk management, issued by the National Tree Safety Group, and to develop tree and woodland strategies, taking advantage of the toolkit that has been developed specifically for them. We know that better management of trees can deliver improved outcomes, particularly for public health and safety.
I welcome the attention that Fiona and Sam Hall’s tireless campaigning has brought to this issue. I again express my heartfelt sympathies on their devastating loss. I am, of course, happy to meet the right hon. Member for Tatton and her constituent to discuss those issues further. I would be happy to meet Mrs Hall and Sam Hall. I invite the right hon. Lady to contact my private office to get a meeting in the diary.
Question put and agreed to.
National Trails
Mary Creagh Excerpts(4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on securing this debate on an important issue. I recognise his long-standing interest in the Thames Path, which runs through his constituency, and his assiduous representation of his constituents through the long series of parliamentary questions he has tabled since entering this House.
The Government are committed to protecting, enhancing and expanding access to national trails. Let us think of other countries. The Camino de Santiago starts in France and goes through Spain. A friend is currently following one of the long-distance paths in Portugal on a bike, finding out about the hills not shown on the map; the map is two dimensional but there are three dimensions out there. The grand routes in France—such as the GR20, or Grand Route Vingt, which that bisects Corsica—are epic, long-distance, mythical trails that connect us to thousands of years of human history.
Every town and constituency in this country has a Green Lane that was literally a green lane. It is important to protect them, not just for inclusive access for local people and the benefits to tourism, but because they say something important and cultural about the human condition, heritage and history.
We have 16 national trails across England and Wales. As the former MP for Wakefield, I know and dearly love the Pennine Way. We always had a new year’s day walk; we would drag the children out, complaining, and then they would find an animal skull and spend the rest of the walk asking what it was and whether they could put it in their pocket. We showed them the Ladybower reservoir where the Dambusters practised for their assault on Germany. Those are iconic, special places that have a heritage in the hearts of local people whose forefathers and foremothers did the Kinder trespass, coming up from Sheffield and Manchester to assert their right to access those beautiful landscapes.
Before the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) leaves, I want to say that in Northern Ireland the national trails are mainly supported by Northern Ireland Government bodies and not the UK national trail funding pot. I like the sound of the Ulster Way and I will look it up next time I am in Magherafelt visiting my uncle.
The Pennine trail up and down the backbone of England offers incredible views over the Peak district and the Yorkshire dales. The South Downs Way runs between Winchester and Beachy Head for more than 100 miles. Those trails are vital public assets that promote wellbeing, health and tourism. It was the previous Labour Government that started work on the vision of an England coastal path, which will be completed under this Government. The King Charles III England Coast Path will be completed next year, an incredible infrastructure achievement.
Richard Foord
The King Charles III coastal path will be an impressive achievement, if we can make it happen. Would the Minister commend the section between Lyme Regis and Sidmouth in my constituency? Would she also pay tribute to the National Trust, which does great work in maintaining our coastal paths?
Mary Creagh
I pay tribute to that section. I have not been to that part of the path but I opened a section of the coastal path in 2011 or 2012, when, sadly, no Minister from the coalition Government could be found to make the journey to Dorset. I was asked as the shadow Secretary of State, and was happy to walk up and down—a lot of up and down—with a pint of foaming ale at the end, which made the visit worthwhile. Achieving these paths requires lots of partners, and the hon. Member rightly mentions the National Trust, which does incredible work in maintaining and protecting the paths through its huge membership support. I was down in Dorset with the National Trust in March, releasing the first wild beaver on the Isle of Purbeck. The National Trust plays an important role in the life of this nation.
When the coastal path is finished, we will have an extraordinary national corridor of access: a 4,750 mile path around England. I have walked certain sections of the Appalachian trail in America, and have heard stories about who goes on these long-distance paths and why. We also have seen the story of “The Salt Path”, which is now subject to some controversy. The Appalachian trail was used by lots of Vietnam veterans as a way of healing; they walked from Georgia to Maine as a way of processing and dealing with the trauma that they had suffered as people who had served their country. Imagine walking 5,000 miles around England! It is lifetime’s work; I do not know whether I will have time to do all of it, but I will certainly have to mark off the bits I have done already.
Since 2009, successive Governments have invested £25.6 million in the planning and establishment of the coastal trail. Successive Governments have recognised the value it will have in connecting communities, landscapes and coastlines, and boosting rural economies. It will be a really important part of rural economic growth. This has never been done before. I remember that, when the Welsh completed their coastal path ahead of us—which was obviously galling—there were articles in The New York Times about it. The path became a tourism destination, with the breathtaking sweep of the Atlantic coast down there. Obviously we have some drier bits, certainly down the east coast, which I know and love dearly—particularly sections around Bridlington and Filey. Coast paths generate a huge amount for local economies. Research has shown that more than £300 million has been spent in local economies by people walking on England coast paths, directly supporting almost 6,000 full-time equivalent jobs.
This Government have backed their commitment to access with action. Since 2022, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has invested £2.5 million into the protected landscapes partnership, which brings together the National Landscapes Association, National Parks England, National Trails UK and Natural England. The partnership focuses on enhancing access and ensuring that our trails have a real impact on people, nature and climate.
One of the most innovative projects under the partnership is the coastal wildbelt project, which is being led by National Trails UK. It focuses on the coastal margin adjacent to the England coast path, which amounts to an area the size of Dorset. Our pilots will identify innovative ways to connect the public with this coastal area around the country. They will also identify ways to better drive nature recovery in these places, because once the path is created, access is created, so we will be able protect and restore nature in some hard-to-reach places.
We have also provided around £5.5 million in support to National Trails UK to enable it to continue its vital work of protecting and restoring the trail network. Trail maintenance funding is provided through Natural England, which is responsible for managing those relationships and ensuring that the trails are well cared for.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) mentioned, many of the challenges facing our national trails are caused by the impacts of climate change, but at the moment Natural England’s fund for environmental incidents covers only coastal erosion and riverbank erosion. Does the Minister agree that this funding pot must be expanded and increased in line with inflation to cover proper provision for climate impacts such as storm damage and flooding?
Mary Creagh
The hon. Lady raises an excellent point. Making sure we are resilient to a rapidly changing climate with warmer, wetter winters and hotter, dryer summers is important for not just food and water security, but all infrastructure, including our roads and bridges. With the flooding in Tadcaster, we saw what happens when a bridge that connects two parts of a town is knocked out during a flood as well as the huge economic and social consequences that that brings. I will take the hon. Lady’s suggestion back to the Department as we look at business planning for this year.
In the Labour manifesto, we committed to deliver nine new national river walks, one in every region of England. That will open up our riversides to the public in a transformative way, creating new opportunities for recreation, supporting biodiversity and strengthening community access to nature. The walks represent a step forward in our mission to make nature accessible to everyone, improve public health and provide opportunities to engage in the great outdoors.
The new Coast to Coast Path national trail from St Bees to Robin Hood’s Bay—an area I know and love well—will take walkers across some of the most beautiful parts of the north of England, including through three national parks: the Lake District, the Yorkshire Dales and the North York Moors. It will be one to walk from west to east, so that hikers always have the rain on their back—and I can promise that there will be rain.
The new national trail will bring increased access opportunities for recreation and tourism, improving health and wellbeing and increasing spending locally. We already have fantastic rights-of-way networks across England, with 120,000 miles of footpaths, bridleways and byways. On Sunday, I got lost near Crawley and Gatwick airport while looking for a friend’s house on my bike. When we go down the little country roads and trails, the signposts are so important when the sat-nav is out of range.
Let me share a story with the House. As the Minister for the circular economy, I am always looking out for waste and pollution. I saw this big, white polystyrene thing by the side of the road and got off my bike, thinking, “That is absolutely disgraceful—someone’s chucked this huge piece of litter here”. It turned out to be a massive puffball mushroom family. I took it and put it in my bag. Last night, my husband and daughter enjoyed puffball mushroom steaks with a hot chilli sauce; we did a lot of checking to make sure it was not poisonous, but fortunately it is literally the size of a football so we could not really mistake it for anything else.
The hon. Member for Henley and Thame raised three points. On the issue of statutory purposes for national trails, the statutory purposes of protected landscapes have been established and evolved over 75 years. If we were going to make any changes, we would need lots of consultation and evidence gathering. Although trails and protected landscapes are part of the same family, they have different roles and responsibilities. Giving trails statutory purposes may not be the most effective way to support them to achieve their objectives.
A statutory purpose would not, on its own, bring planning protections. Many trails cross through existing protected landscapes and other designations. They are covered by protections for those designations already. As such, we do not at this time believe that additional planning protections for trails are needed to support trails in their mission. Perversely, without robust evidence they could place additional burdens on the teams that manage them, so we could not be certain they would provide the benefits that the hon. Member suggests.
We have, as he said, a constrained fiscal environment. This year, the trails have had additional funding with £3.26 million for access-for-all improvements. I saw when I visited Dartmoor how important that was in giving people with Tramper scooters, which I had not previously come across, access to the amazing landscapes there. I am afraid that the percentage quoted by the hon. Member is inaccurate, but we can give him the correct percentage if he wants it afterwards.
We had also funded National Trails UK. In ’25 to ’26, it received £108,000 in revenue and £150,000 of capital support from partnerships. DEFRA has also allocated £500,000 for national trail reinstatement this year to help reestablish the England coastal path when there was a break in continuity due to erosion.
There has also been movement in the last year on removing bureaucracy at the Environment Agency and I will take the good words from the hon. Member for Henley and Thame back to my colleague. I understand the Thames Path national trail partnership is continuing to work with the Environment Agency to reopen Marsh Lock bridge. The EA has conducted a survey and has options for repair and we will continue to work in partnerships on this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025
Mary Creagh Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I rise to speak about an issue of growing urgency: the need to ensure that those who profit from the sale of electrical products take financial responsibility for dealing with the waste that those products will eventually generate. Our planet is facing a mounting waste crisis, and electrical waste is no exception to that. It is the fastest-growing waste stream globally, and the UK is the second biggest generator of electrical waste in the world. We should just ask ourselves how many iPhones and BlackBerries we have hoarded in our drawers at home. Members are all nodding in silent agreement.
Many electricals, including those sold from the online retail and vaping industries, end up in our bins, landfilled, littering our streets and, too often, harming our natural environment. Vapes can also cause fires in our waste storage areas, which has huge costs for the recycling industry. This is simply not sustainable economically, environmentally or socially. For that reason, the Government are taking decisive action. We must not only curb the amount of waste ending up in landfill, but ensure that those who profit from the sale and supply of electricals are responsible for meeting their end-of-life costs.
The draft regulations address two key areas. I will start with vapes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco and other similar products, which, for convenience, I will refer to simply as vapes. The Government have already banned the sale of single-use vapes, which was a vital first step in taking an environmentally harmful product off the market. They were banned from 1 June, so there should be no more Lost Marys littering the streets—it will just be me if I am ever invited to turn up and do a visit.
Our work does not end there. Rechargeable and refillable vapes will continue to be sold, and we need to ensure that their collection and treatment is properly and fairly funded. Producers of electricals, including vapes, are already required to finance the cost of their treatment when they become waste. However, today’s amazing fact is that vapes are currently classified as toys and leisure equipment, so, under the current regulations, producers of toys and other leisure goods could end up cross-subsidising the waste management cost of vapes. It is an amazing thought—because they were such a new invention, they were categorised as toys.
This simply cannot go on. The responsibility for dealing with vapes when they become waste must fall squarely on those who produce them. That is why I am so pleased to introduce the draft regulations, which will hold those producers directly accountable for the environmental impact of the vapes and similar products that they place on the UK market. When I visited Sweeep, a waste recycling processer in Kent, I saw for myself just how difficult, expensive and manually intensive it is to recycle these vapes. The costs must be shouldered by those who profit from their sale.
I will turn my attention to the second issue of the day: the sale of electricals via online marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon from sellers based overseas. There is no doubt that we are now in an era of astonishing convenience. With just a few clicks on our phone, a product made on the other side of the world can be shipped to our doorstep the next day. That is the magic of online shopping. But most overseas sellers on these platforms are not meeting their financial obligations to fund the costs of dealing with their products when they become waste. That is wrong, not least because it is compliant, UK-based, often high street businesses that are picking up the costs for those overseas sellers who are freeloading under the existing regulations. That must stop.
These regs will require online marketplaces to cover the underlying costs associated with products sold by overseas sellers into the UK using their platforms. The time to act is now. Sales made through online marketplaces are skyrocketing, with electrical goods being no exception. An estimated half a million tonnes of electrical products are placed on the UK market via online marketplaces each year.
This instrument is about fairness for the UK high street. It is about supporting businesses doing the right thing, creating a regulatory level playing field, and ensuring that the right people pay their fair share of the waste management costs associated with their products. In doing so, we send a clear message: environmental responsibility is not optional; it is part of doing business in a modern circular economy.
Transitioning to a zero-waste economy is one of five priorities that my Department will deliver as part of a mission-led Government to rebuild Britain. Our circular economy strategy, coming later this year, will set out further plans to stem the rising tide of electronic waste. This Government are committed to putting the “polluter pays” principle into action; we are tackling the waste cowboys, and we are cleaning up Britain.
For those reasons, I commend the measure to the Committee.
Mary Creagh
I will reply and set out next steps. After the regulations enter into force in 21 days—after I lay and sign them—online marketplaces not already registered with a producer compliance scheme must do so by 15 November 2025. All online marketplaces will be required to submit the methodology that they will use for determining the amount of electricals placed on the market via their platform by their overseas sellers, by 15 November—so this is with a producer compliance scheme. That is then reported up to the regulator, which is the Environment Agency.
That data submission is a new requirement, and will help us to better understand the volume of products sold into the UK by overseas sellers through online marketplaces. At the moment, it is a bit hard to say, and online marketplaces may be a little bit chary about sharing data in the interests of competition. So, I genuinely cannot say whether this is going to change behaviour. What I would say is that we are a large, vibrant market—and heavy users of online shopping—so I do not foresee an environment where this change means that overseas sellers withdraw from the market.
Online marketplaces will then be required to report this data on a quarterly basis, in line with the existing reporting obligations. That is of course subject to transitional provisions, which have been made, to reflect that the regulations enter into force partway through the year.
Online marketplaces will only be required to report this data for the period after the regulations enter into force through to December 2025, and they must do so by 31 January 2026. DEFRA will then set a national collection target for 2026 for each of the categories of electrical equipment. The regulators will then issue producer compliance schemes with a share of that target on a market share basis—we will know the exact quantum, the exact market share, and we will allocate the notes in that way. For online marketplaces, that will be based on the data they report from the date that the regulations enter into force until December 2025.
I agree with the hon. Member for Newton Abbot on the single-use vapes issue. They are pocket-money products at pocket-money prices, marketed in lipstick colours, with watermelon and strawberry flavours. These are not products aimed at people trying to give up smoking; we are very much aware of that.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about local authorities, local authorities act as the regulator for the single-use vapes ban. They are responsible for enforcing those regulations, so if you see any on sale, Mr Stringer, in Manchester or anywhere else, you should report it to your local trading standards. We have given them £10 million of new burdens funding to recruit and train up an entire new generation of trading standards officers—a service that was hollowed out under the previous Government. That was very much welcomed by the national Chartered Trading Standards Institute, which I met last month. These are serious jobs—often, such vapes are sold under the counter, and there is other illicit activity happening that means that these officers often have to work with local police forces to do the job. I thank them for their enforcement role.
On the enforcement of the new regs, the WEEE regulations are enforced by the Environment Agency and its equivalents in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They will need to ensure that online marketplaces are registering with a producer compliance scheme in the UK, and that they are submitting data on the amount of electricals placed on the market via their platform by overseas sellers. Producers of vapes and other similar products will need to submit data on the amount of each product that they are placing on the market to the Environment Agency in the new category 7.1.
Finally, on the Friday Private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Newton Abbot, we do of course have the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, which I am sure he is aware of. Under the previous Government, that sort of incorporated the work of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures; but last week, at London Climate Action Week, we saw a recognition of UK leadership in this space in terms of bringing climate and nature on to the books of companies. The days of the old linear “make-take-use-destroy-restore”—regret it and restore it—are over. We have to get to a much more resilient circular economy where we make things that last and that we are proud to own, proud to keep and proud to pass on, and where we have resilient supply chains in an ever more turbulent world.
I hope that the draft regulations meet with the Committee’s approval.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mary Creagh Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Fly-tipping sky-rocketed under the Conservative Government. This Labour Government will crack down on the waste cowboys in order to clean up Britain’s streets. We will support councils in seizing and crush their vehicles. We will use drones and CCTV to hunt down the fly-tippers, forcing them to clean up their mess, and we will bring in new prison sentences for those transporting waste illegally. I am delighted to tell the House that we are beginning the clean-up of the disgraceful fly-tipping in Hoads Wood site of special scientific interest, which happened under the previous Government. That work is ongoing.
Kevin Bonavia
I thank the Minister for her very strong answer. Recently, I have been made aware of a recurring incident of fly-tipping in Bedwell, in the heart of my constituency. The council is working very hard to clear up the mess and find those responsible, but the situation is being made worse by people picking up that rubbish and taking it to the nearby woods. Will the Minister offer extra support to councils like mine, so that together we can clean up our communities and crack down on criminals who think that they can dump their waste with impunity, wrecking the lives of constituent like mine, and making their lives a living hell?
Mary Creagh
I have the greatest sympathy for my hon. Friend’s constituents. I encourage Stevenage borough council to work with our National Fly-tipping Prevention Group, which shares best practice on tackling fly-tipping. We are also taking direct action on some of the littered items, because once there is litter, people think that they can fly-tip, and then they think that they can dump. That is why we have banned the sale of single-use vapes from 1 June, and I stand ready to work with his council.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
When it comes to cracking down on litter and fly-tipping, I would welcome anything the Government do. However, during proceedings on the Crime and Policing Bill, which passed through this place this week, Government Members had ample opportunity to accept various new clauses and amendments that would ensure stricter tackling of littering and fly-tipping, but failed to do so. What message does that send to those who go around tossing litter and fly-tipping, and, importantly, to the many volunteers in constituencies like mine who work day in, day out, to clear up that litter?
Mary Creagh
We have said that we will use existing powers to create clean-up squads, which will force the waste criminals to clear up their mess. It is a little rich of the Conservative party, after 14 years of failure, to attack us after just 10 months in government. We have said that we are changing the carriers, brokers and dealers regime to tighten up arrangements relating to who can carry and transport waste, because the Conservatives left us a paper-based system that is open to fraud.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished mountaineer and mountain guide, for his personal courage and bravery in climbing various very tall mountains, and for championing access to the outdoors. The Government are introducing the national youth guarantee and investing £1.5 million in bursaries to help disadvantaged young people to access the great outdoors. We cannot love what we do not know, so we are delighted to be introducing the new natural history GCSE, in order to build on the UK’s unrivalled history and research in this area.
Andy MacNae
I thank the Minister for acknowledging the power of the outdoors. I should say that I have failed to climb many more mountains than I ever actually got up. Many of the lessons I learned in the mountains are the reason why I am here today. The power of the outdoors in building confidence and resilience among young people is enormous. I am so pleased that 244 young people in Rossendale and Darwen are, right now, taking part in the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme; that is fantastic. For many, discovering the power of nature can be life-changing. Nationally, the evidence of the benefits of outdoor recreation is extensive and unarguable, yet for too many, access to the outdoors remains limited, and 20 million people do not live within 15 minutes of green and blue space. Do the Secretary of State and the Minister agree that a key ambition of access legislation must be access for all?
Mary Creagh
The Government are absolutely committed to extending access, which is why we have committed to creating nine new national river walks and three national forests, the first of which is the Western forest, which I had the pleasure of planting a tree in a couple of months ago. We are also designating Wainwright’s coast-to-coast walk as a national trail. My hon. Friend is right about the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme, which my daughter will be taking part in this summer. We support the award, which aims to reach a quarter of a million more young people by next year.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The rivers and coastline in my constituency are treasured by local families and children, including my own, whether they are kayaking and paddleboarding on the Cuckmere and Ouse rivers or swimming off the beaches of Seaford bay, yet they are regularly blighted by sewage discharges courtesy of Southern Water. Will the Minister meet me to discuss our local campaign to secure bathing water status for the Cuckmere river and blue flag status for Seaford beach to reassure local families and visitors alike that we are taking water quality seriously, so that they can be confident that they can use these outdoor spaces safely?
Mary Creagh
I would be delighted to offer up the Water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), to meet the hon. Gentleman on that issue. I would just say that the King Charles III coastal path will open up a quarter of a million hectares of open access land on the coast—I know that Lewes is very close to some of that spectacular scenery.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
We have announced plans to tighten up the regulation of those who transport and manage waste, moving them from a light-touch regime into a permitted system, which gives the Environment Agency a greater range of powers. It will also introduce the possibility of up to five years in prison for those who breach the new laws.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Mary Creagh
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady in great detail and at great length, but it is not something I can explain in 20 seconds.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Following last month’s Supreme Court ruling about wild camping on Dartmoor, will the Secretary of State confirm whether he believes that responsible wild camping should be permitted in the other national parks?
Mary Creagh
We were delighted by the Supreme Court judgment on Dartmoor wild camping and we understand the calls to expand it. However, we have no plans to extend it, as it does need to be balanced with landowner rights and habitat protection.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
The gamekeepers employed by the military shoots on Salisbury plain are an essential resource in preserving that rare and special habitat, but DEFRA has given the rights to award licences to the shoots to Natural England, a quango that is ideologically opposed to shooting. Will the Minister take responsibility and ensure that the shoots on Salisbury plain get their licences this year?
Flood Prevention: Sleaford and North Hykeham
Mary Creagh Excerpts(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Before I start my remarks, I will make a declaration of interest: my husband is a farmer, and we have a small stipend to pay to the internal drainage board in relation to flood risk.
My constituents in Sleaford and North Hykeham enjoy some of the most beautiful countryside that the United Kingdom has to offer. Our hard-working farmers reap the benefits of some of the best agricultural land in the country for their crops. Unfortunately, living in this area brings some environmental risks.
Many Lincolnshire MPs centuries ago held the office of commissioner of sewers in the county. The job sounds unglamorous but was very important, bringing with it responsibility for managing the county’s waterways and drainage and for protecting lives and livelihoods from the risk of flood damage. I am not suggesting that I take on that role myself, but that historical flood risk has only become more acute in recent years. Land usage has intensified, our climate has become more volatile and greater pressures have started to affect our natural resources. Our county has suffered from flooding caused by overwhelmed drainage systems and excessive river levels. The effects on people have magnified too. Some people whose homes were flooded lost not just possessions, but the ability to live in their home for a long period of time; some did not return home for more than a year.
Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting Heighington Millfield primary academy as it formally reopened following significant flood damage last year. The closure had major effects on the children there, who had to be bused to different schools around the county within the trust, and significant measures had to be taken to restore the school. I put on record my thanks to everybody involved in that work. The community really pulled together for those children, and the Department for Education and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs worked very hard together to ensure not just that the school was repaired, but that flood measures were put in place to try to prevent those things happening again.
The school now has flood doors in place so that it can prevent flooding coming in through the doors, and it is having work done over the summer in preparation for the autumn rain to protect the outside environment, which includes bunding around the playing fields and a special garden at the back of the school on higher ground, which will absorb some of the water if the rain overtops the back again. Unfortunately, at the same time that that great work has been going on, new councillors under the direction of Reform have chosen to abolish the county council committee dedicated to managing flood risk. I will have more to say about that later.
In opening this debate, I want to make a simple point. My constituents deserve to live in safety and to go about their work and education without severe disruption from climate events. We need to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect their lives and livelihoods, and that recommendations are being followed up and maintenance work is being done on time. We also need to make the most of local expertise and experience, and not undo the good work started under the previous Government towards fostering collaboration between agencies and local people.
Many communities across my constituency have been affected by flooding in recent times, and they deserve to have their experiences shared. In North Scarle, for example, residents faced huge disruption in 2024 when heavy rainfall on to already wet ground caused flooding at Mill Dam dyke. The local authority report on the event found that poor maintenance of the local watercourses had contributed to the flooding, as did problems with the surface drainage system.
As I saw when I visited North Scarle in December that year, co-operation among different agencies is key in tackling these kinds of events. Lincolnshire county council is responsible for cleaning gullies and maintaining drainage, while the Environment Agency has responsibility for ongoing maintenance at Mill Dam dyke. Meanwhile, local groups such as Flood Action North Scarle contribute valuable local knowledge and experience.
The EA has upheld its end of the shared responsibilities set out in the flooding report, and has engaged the local community by providing maintenance updates. It spent around £71,000 on maintenance in 2023-24. However, since the spending review published this week revealed a 2.7% cut in the DEFRA budget over the review period, can the Minister assure my constituents that the EA will still have the money to continue maintaining these dykes going forward? And what will the Minister do to ensure transparency from councils? Updates from the EA are relatively easy to access, but Lincolnshire county council’s flooding project website simply lists its own actions following each flood report as “ongoing”. My residents need more clarity than that.
In Sleaford, residents faced similar problems when Field beck was overtopped in October 2023 and drainage systems again became overwhelmed. I welcome the work that the EA has done here too, with the business case for a major capital scheme approved on 2 June. I am pleased about this investment, which is projected to avoid £188 million in economic damage, deliver £74 million in people-related benefits and protect 604 properties from repeat flood damage.
In Leasingham, more work needs to be done. Residents suffered flooding twice in quick succession, including in the school, in October 2023 and January 2024, when agricultural ditches overtopped and Leasingham beck exceeded its capacity. The council’s flood report recommended that the EA and Lincolnshire county council work together to carry out channel condition assessments at Leasingham beck, with the results to be reported back to the Lincolnshire flood risk and water management partnership.
However, the inspections have not yet happened. Worse still, even as reports into historical flooding are calling for closer collaboration, the Reform council is undoing the successful partnerships already established. The Lincolnshire flood and water management scrutiny committee did vital work in bringing together key agencies involved in flood management and prevention: the EA, internal drainage boards, Anglian Water, district councils and other key experts. Three weeks ago, Reform abolished the committee, folding it into the generalist environment committee, which does not have the same specialist remit to cover the most important and complex environmental issue facing the county.
By rejecting the valuable contributions of IDBs, district councils and local experts, Reform councillors are saying that they know better than local people who have tended the land for generations. All the main parties have opposed the committee’s abolition and have seen it for what it is: politicking with people’s livelihoods. If the Government see these reckless actions being wrought on local communities in Sleaford and North Hykeham and elsewhere in Lincolnshire, what can they do to ensure that councils uphold their responsibilities to residents?
Instead of cancelling initiatives, we should be creating new ones. I was encouraged by the excellent work done under the previous Government to advance the water maintenance pilot scheme, which was designed to foster collaboration between farmers and the National Farmers Union, local drainage boards and the EA. The scheme enabled greater co-ordination and common-sense flexibility in the management of waterways—for example, by training local landowners in how to manage watercourses, and then allowing them to carry out their own minor channel clearance and maintenance work for themselves.
The scheme helped to avoid the ludicrous, heartbreaking situation in which local people can see a problem with a local watercourse, are aware it is going to flood their farm, land or their home, and have the equipment and the know-how to do something about it, but the law prevents them from doing so. It is illogical. Public sector co-operation agreements already exist to help streamline those schemes and place participants on a clear legal footing. One of the great local successes under that framework was the 2018 silt dredging of the South Forty-Foot drain, a farmland drainage channel dating from the 17th century, under a PSCA between the Black Sluice drainage board and the EA.
Why have the lessons of those schemes not been applied more widely? Since the last election, the scheme in my own constituency has ground to a halt, and with it have gone the benefits that were already accruing. Will the Minister commit to supporting those schemes and encouraging their wider roll-out? As she looks to her budgets, it is worth recognising that it is much cheaper for the IDB to clear drains and ditches than for the EA to do so, since the EA’s procurement process is so cumbersome that it becomes significantly more expensive. One of the things that frustrates many local people in my constituency is that they could do the job and get it done much quicker. They are waiting, and places are flooding while it is not getting done.
Another thing that the Minister could discuss with the Treasury is that the IDB has been prevented from using red diesel in its pumps. The IDB has told me that the problem is that the pumps are placed in isolated places, and believe it or not, people are stealing the diesel. It is white diesel—it is expensive, so it is worth something—and people are stealing it from the pump, which is putting everyone at risk. The IDB feels that if it were red diesel in those pumps, theft would be much less likely.
Brant Broughton is an area in which a number of houses flooded. We have had a less promising update from the Environment Agency in that respect; it says that it was expecting to receive a model of the river system around the summer of 2025.
Dr Johnson
The Minister is nodding—I do not know whether she has an update on what the Environment Agency means by “the summer”. We were expecting the health plan in the spring, and that has been and gone, so if she could help with that, that would be really great. There is some concern about the overall cost-benefit ratio, given the number of houses. I encourage the Minister to remember that although the people who live in rural areas may live in areas that are less densely populated, they have as much right to a safe environment as anybody who lives in a more densely populated part of the country.
There are more examples of communities in my constituency that have suffered the impacts of flooding and are crying out for a joined-up and proactive approach that will protect them from repeat occurrences in the future. In Washingborough and Timberland, a familiar story happened in recent floods: heavy rain, overwhelmed drainage and excessive water runoff led to communities being left to suffer. While the EA has carried out some channel clearance and vegetation management, flood reports make clear that responsibility falls between central agencies, the county council, landowners, and stakeholders such as Anglian Water. Once again, it is vital that open communication is at the heart of the strategy, and that politically motivated meddling is not allowed to get in the way.
I took the chair of the Environment Agency and the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), to visit the Delph at Washingborough when it was full. It was very clear that the EA’s priority had been to protect the small creatures living in the dyke by not clearing the vegetation out, but of course, once the floods came, those small creatures were no more anyway. It would have been much better for the creatures, the environment, and the wider countryside and the people who live there if those dykes had been cleared properly in the first place. Trees were literally growing in that dyke when we went to see it.
There are two final communities facing specific future threats that I would like to highlight. In Ruskington, residents endured flooding in 2023 and 2024 caused by the overflow of Ruskington beck. I understand that the Environment Agency has been conducting bimonthly maintenance and debris removal, and is investigating a capital programme for defences in Ruskington as part of the next five-year funding period. Any scheme will have to meet economic viability criteria and defined cost-benefit metrics, despite future house building plans that will see more land covered, more people in at-risk areas, and more demand on drainage systems.
As of December 2024, under the Government’s new targets, the central Lincolnshire partnership—of which North Kesteven forms a part—faces a house building target of 1,552 houses per year over the course of this Parliament, an 47% increase on the previous target. Can the Minister assure me that the cost-benefit analyses deciding the fate of future flood defence schemes will take account of the Government’s rampant house building plans, and will account for all the ways in which flooding impacts a community such as Ruskington, from work hours lost to home damage, insurance claims, watercourse repairs and drainage clearance?
Finally, Anwick suffered in the floods of 2023, when the River Slea and its tributaries experienced very high water levels. The EA and Anglian Water have been engaged in positive liaisons to manage risks at the River Slea, Farroway drain and Anwick catchwater, but residents in Anwick contacted me in September 2024 when a sewage processing plant flooded, causing discharge and polluting smells across the area. I met Anglian Water to discuss those constituents’ concerns, but their bigger concerns are now about a biogas digester that may be built immediately next door. In this case too, it is vital that lessons are learned and that we avoid repeating mistakes that will lead to more disruption for local people in the future.
Addressing the risks requires the careful allocation of money. A glance at the most recent funding allocations under the flood and coastal erosion risk management grant in aid scheme shows that many dozens of projects appear in the bidding process but receive no funding. The allocation data for the Upper Witham internal drainage board in my constituency shows 15 intended projects listed for completion between 2023 and 2040, but none has any grant funding at all allocated this year. Lincolnshire county council, meanwhile, is due to receive £103,500 in grant funding over 2025-26 for year one of the property flood resilience project. Two smaller projects will receive a total of £52,500 from non-grant public contributions, but 19 other projects will receive no funding at all.
The Government have made much of the £2.65 billion in funding for flood defences that was announced in February, but as I have said before, governing effectively is about making choices. Can the Government clarify for my constituents how the EA is expected to prioritise its funding among the many equally important projects that need support, especially in light of cuts to the DEFRA budget? How much money is spent on developing schemes that subsequently do not come to fruition? What is the estimated cost—in household damage, lost output and broader economic terms—of deciding not to act?
As I mentioned earlier, the hard-working farmers in my constituency do so much for our local and national economy and for this country’s food security, and it is vital that we remember them. What will become of agricultural productivity in areas left with inadequate flood defences? What will happen to food security when some of our best-quality agricultural land is lost to frequent inundation, and how are farmers meant to prepare for this uncertainty–—in economic and practical terms—when they already face such a heady mix of threats to their livelihoods? Just as farmers have been left to face the family farm tax instituted by the Labour party and have suffered the sudden loss of the sustainable farming incentive, they will also face the threat of flooding, without the help and support they need, if this Government fail to act in the long-term interests of rural communities.
We have reached the time for action on flood prevention and resilience. As I noted earlier, the way to manage the risks is with local knowledge, collaborative and long-term management strategies, and proper funding—essentially, with basic common sense. First, we must keep the valuable expertise of local people within the decision-making system. IDBs, local farmers and expert local committees know their land best, and we must give them the tools and authority to manage their own environments.
Secondly, we must build on projects such as the water maintenance pilot to foster long-term planning and inter-agency working. We can do more: the creation of a Lincolnshire rivers authority, for example, would provide a structured platform for long-term flood planning that could be tailored to the needs of local people, rather than to the nationwide EA or DEFRA frameworks.
Finally, we must ensure that vital projects receive the necessary funding, without being held up by central agencies’ cost-benefit frameworks. Local authorities should hold budgetary power as well as decision-making power to make sure that interventions are made where they are needed most, and in a timely and efficient way. With these measures, we can make sure that local people have control over their own local environment and give them the tools they need to prevent the devastating impacts of flooding, which have blighted some areas of Lincolnshire for too long.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate and on raising these very important issues, which I will endeavour to address in the time remaining.
Protecting communities, homes, businesses and farmland from flooding is a priority for this Government, and I am delighted to hear that Heighington Millfield academy students are now safely back at school. I am sure that there has been a lot of disruption, particularly for those taking public exams. I am grateful to the hon. Member for her generous comments about the Department for Education, DEFRA and EA officials who have been working at pace to minimise the impact, and I pay tribute to all the people involved in that—not least the parents and the students themselves. I am very pleased to hear that there are flood-resilient repairs, and I am interested in ways in which nature-based planting around the school can potentially help with flood mitigation in the future.
May I say how incredibly disappointed I am to hear that the Reform-led county council in Lincolnshire has taken the very short-sighted and unwelcome decision to abolish the flood risk and flood protection committee? This shows the danger of pandering to reactionary rhetoric and then leaving local homes and local communities unprotected. I shall be watching the council very closely to ensure that it is fulfilling its duties under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
I am aware that the hon. Member’s constituency has been badly affected by flooding from Storms Babet and Henk during the winter of 2023-24. Sadly, more were flooded this January after heavy rainfall, and my thoughts are with those affected. As the former MP for Wakefield, I had 1,000 properties flooded in 2007, and I can tell her that the psychological impact on residents is very long lasting. I totally understand her desire to raise these matters on behalf of her constituents and the local communities she serves.
Engagement and collaboration are a key component of managing and mitigating flood risk, and I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member is in contact with the Environment Agency on these matters. I can confirm that her constituency is receiving £9.3 million from the Government’s flood investment programme this financial year, which is funding the repair and maintenance, as she said, of a number of crucial flood defences. As she mentioned Lincolnshire’s section 19 reports, I can say that officials tell me that they have been completed and that any decisions arising from them will take place in future funding years.
Work has started this month on phase 1 of the Lower Witham flood resilience project, which will support embankment assets. Phase 2 of the project, which is planned, will bring further investment in sustaining legacy assets while implementing adaptation measures to improve the resilience of the area to flooding.
The Environment Agency is working with partners to build an up-to-date model of the Lower Witham, to be completed this financial year, and it will be used to test future adaptive approaches and accurately assess flood risk. I will ask the Minister for Water and Flooding, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), to write to the hon. Member if there are any things that we cannot get through in the time available.
The River Slea flood resilience project is exploring a new, more sustainable solution to flood risk management in Sleaford. Public engagement has been undertaken with organisations and other stakeholders on this project. Ruskington is also being considered for a flood resilience project.
As set out by the Chancellor this week, in order to support the Government’s growth mission and plan for change, we are investing a record £4.2 billion over the next three years, from April 2026, to build new flood defences and to maintain and repair existing ones across the country. That is £1.4 billion each year. This is a 5% increase in our annual average investment compared with our existing spend of £2.65 billion over the past two years—2024-25 and 2025-26.
Our current investment programme is supporting 1,000 projects, which will help to protect 52,000 homes and businesses by March 2026. And through essential maintenance, a further 14,500 properties will have their expected level of protection maintained or restored. That is a total of 66,500 properties that will benefit, helping to secure jobs, deliver growth and protect against economic damage.
We have also unlocked £140 million from this investment to get 29 stalled projects moving. This is targeted at schemes that were ready to go, so that protection can be delivered faster for those who need it the most, and we have published the full list of funded schemes for this financial year.
The Government inherited flood assets in their poorest condition on record following years of under-investment, leaving 3,000 of the Environment Agency’s 38,000 key flood defence assets below the condition required. This Government are taking decisive action to fix the foundations, giving communities confidence that flood defences will protect them.
We are prioritising, over the current two spending years from 2024-25 and 2025-26, £108 million in repairing and restoring those critical assets. Last year, £36 million focused on damage from recent storms and flooding, with a further £72 million this year to ensure that defences are resilient, reliable and ready. In addition, environmental land management schemes present a valuable opportunity for supporting flooding and coastal erosion risk management, through direct funding of actions and providing a revenue stream to support landowners working with EA capital schemes, and through indirect actions that will lead to reduced watercourse maintenance requirements, increasing the lifespan of our assets.
The hon. Lady mentioned red diesel and I just wanted to make a quick point on that. The previous Government removed most red diesel entitlements from April 2022, but there are some exceptions. Risk management authorities, which include internal drainage boards, may use red diesel for drainage ditch clearance, including work relating to agriculture, horticulture and forestry. I hope that is a useful clarification.
Watercourse management responsibilities fall to different bodies. Riparian landowners whose land adjoins a watercourse, such as a drainage ditch, are required to keep those watercourses clear of anything that could be an obstruction. The EA has permissive powers to work on the main rivers, and lead local flood authorities or internal drainage boards have permissive powers for ordinary watercourses. The EA focuses on those activities that will achieve the greatest benefit in terms of protecting people and property from flooding. That, of course, can include dredging and clearing channels. In Lincolnshire, that often involves using the local IDBs.
The EA spends an average of £40 million a year on these activities to improve water flow in around 3,000 km of main rivers. The need for dredging is assessed on a location-by-location basis. The EA will work with local communities, IDBs and through public sector co-operation agreements to assess whether dredging is technically achievable and cost-effective, ensuring that it does not significantly increase flood risk downstream and that it is environmentally acceptable.
The hon. Lady asked about future funding reforms. The current approach to floods funding, introduced by a previous Government in 2011, neglects more innovative approaches. To address that, we have reviewed our approach and last week launched a consultation on proposals to reform the way we allocate funding to flood schemes. Our proposals will make it simpler for all risk management authorities to calculate their funding, benefiting all councils, including those that have less resource to commit to the application process. This should speed up the delivery of vital schemes and ensure that money is distributed more effectively across the country, including for rural and coastal communities, and poorer communities that have previously struggled to secure funding.
We will make it easier to invest in natural flood management schemes that also give benefits for nature, water resources and the fight against climate change. We are considering how communities can make better use of property flood resilience measures. Changes to the current approach to floods funding will be launched in time for the new floods investment programme, which will start in April 2026. The consultation is open to all and we encourage everyone with an interest to respond and help shape our future approach to flood funding.
This issue is at the very top of the Secretary of State’s priorities, which is why we set up a flood resilience taskforce to provide oversight of national and local flood resilience and preparedness. That taskforce represents a new approach that brings together representatives from national, regional and local government, the devolved Administrations, the emergency services, charities and environmental interest groups. We need to know what works and we are learning where we need to make changes. We have established action groups led by members to deliver progress on areas, including flood warnings, awareness of recovery and insurance schemes.
The Government fully support the vital role that internal drainage boards play in managing water and flood risk and in protecting the environment.
Dr Johnson
When I went around looking at the different areas of flooding in my constituency, I got a consistent message: that the EA had not performed as well as the IDBs and that it was costing more money per activity. In her final few minutes, can the Minister touch on how the IDBs can do more of the work and engage more local people in doing it for themselves?
Mary Creagh
The previous Government had allocated £75 million to the IDB fund; I am happy to say that in March we announced an additional £16 million boost to the fund. That creates a total of £91 million, which should enable IDBs to modernise and upgrade their assets and waterways so that they are fit for the future, improving water management for more than 400,000 hectares of agricultural land and about 91,000 homes and businesses. That includes three IDBs in the hon. Lady’s constituency: Black Sluice, Upper Witham and Witham First, which have received Government funding of about £10.4 million in grants from the IDB fund since 2024-25, to help with pumping station repairs and watercourse embankment repairs.
I am in my final minute. I encourage the hon. Lady’s constituents to sign up for flood warnings on gov.uk. It is vital that communities are in the communications chain so that they are aware of flood events, especially given that intense rainfall is expected this evening. I will endeavour to write to the hon. Lady about any other issues she may have.
Question put and agreed to.