Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
Mary Creagh Excerpts(2 days, 5 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 a pleasure to speak on this issue today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. We have heard from powerful advocates for the glass industry, the fibre-based composites industry, the ceramics industry, the wine industry in Cornwall and, of course, the beer and pub industry, which we are all hoping to go and enjoy shortly.
Let me begin by also declaring my interest as a member of the GMB trade union. I recognise the challenging context in which the glass industry operates; that is a result of a range of global pressures, including the international increases in energy costs, volatile commodity prices, growing international competition, and substantial investment in decarbonising energy-intensive manufacturing processes. I also recognise and acknowledge the industry’s concerns about packaging extended producer responsibility, or PEPR, which is an internationally recognised model used in more than 30 countries to transform recycling services. The model shifts the cost of managing packaging waste from taxpayers—that is us—to the producers who put it on the market. It is the “polluter pays” principle in action. Its introduction in this country is the biggest change to recycling policy in 25 years.
The policy was formulated under the previous Conservative Government. The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) is no longer in his place, but it was his Government who first began developing it back in 2018-19. There was a debate on it on the Floor of the House, in which he did not register his objections, and he did not vote against it. Perhaps he was absent, or chatting to his new friends in a different party.
Since PEPR has been brought in, the money raised from packaging producers and retailers has gone directly to councils to fund the introduction of simpler recycling—the new recycling collections that we have. That does not include the food waste collections, although they are part of simpler recycling. Last year, PEPR raised over £1.4 billion for local authorities to deliver better recycling services for people in every nation of the UK. Our goal is to get from 45% recycled—that is where we have stagnated over the last decade—to 65% recycled by 2035. That is an important goal. The food waste collections—they are not paid for through PEPR—are part of the simpler recycling reforms and a really important part of taking the methane out of our bins.
Let me come to glass fees. Last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham rightly said, year 1 PEPR fees took account only of the weight and volume of materials. That reflected the cost to local authorities of collecting and disposing of the materials. Following her excellent Westminster Hall debate last year, we have worked at pace, and I am pleased to tell hon. Members that from this year—year 2—we are bringing in lower fees for more recyclable packaging.
Our latest data shows that more than 93% of glass will receive a “green” discount for being recyclable. This means that producers of harder-to-recycle “red” materials, such as crisp packets, will pay a premium. The system is designed to reward the right choices. The incentive to make the right choices will increase, because in years 3 and 4, producers of “red” materials—the more complex forms of packaging—will pay even higher fee rates than those do who use more recyclable, “green” materials, like glass. The forecasts that I have seen expect the glass sector to pay a decreasing share of PEPR costs in years 2 and 3. In year 4, that will fall even further, as the penalty for “red” packaging will reach double the basic “green” rate.
Sarah Champion
Can the Minister tell us whether that will be the 75% discount that the glass industry is asking for? Does she know what the falling rates will be, please?
Mary Creagh
Again, we have a complex system. I would very much like to give my hon. Friend the amounts per tonne, but that is not possible, much though I would like to give her comfort, until all packaging producers have reported their data in the autumn. We will then issue the invoices. I can say that the proportion that the glass sector will pay will fall year on year. We have been listening very carefully to the glass industry on that issue. PackUK, the scheme administrator, and officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs meet the glass sector and British Glass regularly, and PackUK ran a workshop just this week, which included British Glass, on how we can drive the use of more recyclable materials.
Everything that PackUK does is subject to four-nation agreement. We had a meeting this morning with the devolved Governments, at which we talked through some of the issues. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland face very different challenges, and the challenges of collecting in inner-city London are not comparable to those of collecting waste in the Outer Hebrides. The model is therefore complex from the recycling and collections point of view as well.
Returning to glass, PackUK and DEFRA officials will visit Ardagh Glass later this month. The visit was due to take place in June, but it was rescheduled at Ardagh’s request. PackUK also visited Encirc in Northern Ireland last month. I have spoken to the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) about the issue around the reduction in energy fees, but those do not apply in Northern Ireland. That is another—well, we could talk about Brexit, but perhaps we will not intrude on that private pain.
May I also say that since we debated glass fees last year, DEFRA officials have visited five of the six major glass manufacturers in the UK to hear from them directly, and that includes Beatson Clark? We are acting on their concerns. Also, we have investment in the glass industry in this country; we have a new electric glass factory at Verallia in Leeds.
Mary Creagh
I want to make a little bit of progress, if I may, because it is four minutes to kick-off.
Mary Creagh
I want to make some progress, and my hon. Friend may find that I answer her questions.
PackUK has today published improved guidance on how recyclability will be assessed and rewarded. The glass section was developed in close collaboration with the glass industry and we have already received positive feedback. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said about wool. When I see wool used as a coolant, it tends to come in plastic packaging, for hygiene reasons. That packaging can certainly be open up, and the wool can then be composted, but there is usually a film around it, and under the recyclability assessment methodology, that would incur higher fees. All this is meant to incentivise design for recyclability. I was due to meet a wool insulation provider this week. Sadly, I was not able to, but she was on her way down, and I believe that she met officials. I will check that later. I am keen to do work on this issue, because it is particularly important for the British wool industry, with wool at such rock-bottom prices.
We are planning to launch a call for evidence this year to gather industry views, which will inform how we continue to reward the right choices. On the post-implementation review, it will be conducted and published in the normal way, three years after the regulations came in. That is slated for December 2028.
Sarah Champion
It is reassuring that we are going to have the consultation. Would it not have been much better to have had it before the scheme was implemented? The Minister mentioned a meeting with my constituency business, Beatson Clark. That meeting only happened because I urged the previous Secretary of State and the Minister to make it happen, and I assume that the other examples of meetings that have taken place, or not, have been at the insistence of MPs. Why was that work not done before the scheme was rolled out?
Mary Creagh
I cannot speak for what happened under the previous Administration, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the scheme was announced in 2018, and a consultation happened in 2019. There was another consultation, but I cannot find the exact part of my pack on that. There was a full impact assessment of PEPR published in October 2020, setting out the expected overall costs to businesses. At that stage, it was not possible to assess the impact on specific sectors or regions, as fees and modulation had not been finalised. This has been a huge infrastructure project change, and a huge system change. The Environment Agency, acting as the regulator, holds the database of everyone who is a packaging producer. Elsewhere in the waste and packaging sector, we see large issues around avoidance, free riding and other issues, so we had to go through a massive piece of work with our regulator to ensure that everyone who is putting packaging on is meeting their obligations.
There were public consultations in 2019 and 202,1 and a consultation on draft regulations in 2023. There was a consultation with British Glass on the decision to use volume in the apportionment of kerbside recycling collection costs in July 2024, prior to the release of the initial set of illustrative base fees. I think that there was perhaps a misunderstanding, given that this had all been thought about and discussed for five or six years, that it was never going to happen. To be fair to the smaller companies, perhaps they were unaware of their obligations, or perhaps they were not obligated at that time, but have since grown and been brought over the de minimis threshold.
Let me talk a little bit more about what the Government are doing more widely to support glass businesses with their electricity costs.
Gareth Snell
I genuinely thank the Minister for being generous with her time. On the idea of a post-implementation review, is there a way of looking at the time that businesses have to spend interacting with the scheme? The Titanic brewery in Stoke-on-Trent—very good beer, by the way—has told me that it took three weeks of one employee’s time to complete the assessment for the first year’s fees. I am sure that that is not by design, but in the review, will the Department look at how to make interaction with the scheme easier for small businesses that do not have much capacity?
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and this is something that I have been insistent with officials on. This is a complex scheme, and the more complexity we add into it, the more time it will take. There is a trade-off here, and a set of difficulties, because we can do carve-outs for x and y sector, but that creates more complexity in the recycling assessment methodology calculations for other parts of the packaging industry. We have to beware of making perfection the enemy of the good. I can also let my hon. Friend know that the chief executive officer of PackUK, Jeremy Blake, met the WoolCool CEO yesterday. I thought that had happened, but I am glad to have got the note telling me it is true.
Beyond this, we are supporting the glass businesses with their electricity costs through the British industry supercharger. Glass businesses now receive 90% compensation for electricity network charges. This brings their total reduction in electricity bills to an average of between £65 and £87 per megawatt-hour. We are also supporting the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors with lower tax rates for their properties. On the issue around cheaper imports coming from overseas, the Trade Remedies Authority’s independent anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations into cheaper glass imports from China and Turkey are ongoing. That is dealt with by another Government Department.
We are working closely with industry to address the challenge of dual use—packaging disposed of in either business or household waste streams. We know how important this issue is to stakeholders across different sectors, including pubs, hospitality and medical packaging businesses, and construction. Indeed, I met a representative of the paint industry at a B&Q in my Coventry East constituency. Paint will always come in a tin or plastic container with a coating inside it, so it will never attract “green” fees, but we want to get that paint recycled, reused or repurposed. B&Q is doing some excellent work with the charity Neighbourly to ensure that paint has a second life. People do not know what to do with unused paint. Builders finish using a pot, then down into the drain the rest goes, adding to the diffuse water pollution that we are experiencing across our sewer network.
This is a tricky issue, but we need a system that can be effectively monitored and enforced. It is no good just saying, “Oh, everyone decides that all their stuff goes to the pubs” and then suddenly we are left with a massive shortfall in the fees, so it has to be verifiable. We are testing solutions, including for hospitality, and building on international best practice, looking in particular at the Austrian model. I held a roundtable with industry last year to look at solutions for the dual-use challenge. It is difficult, but I hope for a solution on this issue soon that does not add undue complexity to the scheme or make it impossible for the regulator to verify.
Gareth Snell
I am sorry to detain the House. I am not sure if a try has been scored yet, but I am sure somebody will find out—
Gareth Snell
The Minister mentioned the super-charger scheme and the impact for glass manufacturers. I know the super-charger scheme is not her Department, but it is only for frontier industries. Can she say whether or not glass bottle manufacturers that go into the hospitality sector benefit from that? My understanding was that they do not because they are not considered one of the glass fibres or the industrial glass needed for the frontier industries.
Mary Creagh
I am looking to my officials in the Box, and I think it is probably safest if I write to my hon. Friend on that issue.
Let me tell the House about the year 1 shortfall in fees. There was a shortfall in the fees this year as we allowed packaging producers to submit their tonnages and then their tonnages reduced because, obviously, they looked at their figures and reduced them. We listened to industry on that. Despite the regulations saying that actually industry should make up any shortfall, my Department took pressure off businesses by funding on an exceptional basis to hold fees down. We are taking steps this year to ensure that we do not have a repeat of that.
On early successes, we are hearing about PEPR bringing about change. Councils all over the UK are using this funding from the packaging industry to improve services to local people. In Tameside, the metropolitan council is investing £1.6 million in new vehicles and improved technology to deliver a more reliable service for taxpayers. Councils are investing to improve glass collection directly, which should benefit the industry in terms of the supply of high-quality cullet. For example, Aberdeenshire council is investing £5 million over 2 years to purchase a new three-compartment glass collection vehicle—I hope that is “vehicles”, but it says “vehicle” here—upgrading glass recycling points to reduce contamination, and improving the quality of glass recyclate, which we know really matters to the glass industry.
Mr Forster
I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. I am sure she can probably understand why I, Asahi, which is based in Woking, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and others are not satisfied with her answers today. I have heard nothing of the double taxation, which is what EPR is. Will she agree to meet me, the hon. Member, other MPs and, more importantly, the businesses impacted to fully understand the impact and to work out a way forward?
Mr Forster
I might have been distracted in the last eight minutes—I do not know why. I remember hearing that the Minister said she has held a roundtable. I do remember that it was last year, and I am keen for her to meet the stakeholders again before this wider consultation and what happens next—hence my request.
Mary Creagh
Obviously, I do not sit there and do the maths with people. These suggestions and potential solutions have to be modelled and worked through. We are working at pace to assess whether any targeted short-term measures could be introduced through the forthcoming PEPR amending statutory instrument to partially address the dual-use packaging issue. So we are working on a short-term solution, but we are also working on a longer-term solution, which is the Austrian model that I mentioned. Again, the hon. Gentleman may have been distracted by the whistle when I mentioned that.
Councils across the country are rebranding and upgrading their glass recycling points to make it easier for households to use glass recycling facilities and to reduce the contamination that we know is so important to avoid in glassmaking. We have made a £5.3 million investment in that over a couple of years, and those changes are happening on the ground.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, reuse is not a short-term fix. It was once the norm when a lot of us—perhaps not all hon. Members present in the Chamber—were growing up, and it can be again. In some ways the future looks like the past—let us hope that is not the case for the England game. PEPR creates a powerful financial incentive for glass producers to move to reuse. Running reuse schemes means producers avoid most PEPR fee obligations, and glass, as we have heard, is a durable, tried and tested technology.
While it requires up-front investment and system change, it shifts costs away from single-use production and disposal, it improves supply chain resilience and reduces costs over time. Reuse is already operating at scale internationally, particularly for glass. Reusing a glass bottle just five times can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by more than a third. The more times they are reused, the greater the benefits will be.
As we have heard today, the issue is not just about the environment; it is also about jobs, communities and the long-term health of British industry. The industry estimates that these reforms will create 25,000 jobs and underpin £10 billion of investment in new sorting and processing facilities. The reforms will drive that improvement in our recycling rate and, crucially, they will reduce our carbon emissions.
In conclusion, glass matters, industry matters and glassworkers matter. This Government back businesses and workers, and we back the transition to a circular economy that makes the country stronger, cleaner and more resilient. Change is coming to EPR and I reassure all hon. Members that we want to have a predictable, well set out framework within which business can confidently operate and householders can confidently know that what they put in their recycling streams is going to have a second, and hopefully third and fourth, life.
Question put and agreed to.
Government Estate Nature Plan
Mary Creagh Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Tomorrow, during London Climate Action Week, I am publishing the first ever Government estate nature plan, which sets out a new, smarter way of using Government land to support nature recovery, climate adaptation and the resilience of public services.
Bringing together action across more than 577,000 hectares—roughly 4% of England’s land—the Government estate nature plan moves from fragmented, site-by-site efforts to a more co-ordinated, whole-estate approach, strengthening resilience and helping protect critical public services from climate impacts. This is a new way of seeing public land—not as scattered parcels, but as a living system that can restore nature, strengthen resilience and support the services that people rely on. As the largest landowner in the country, the Government will lead by example, showing how nature can be restored at scale while supporting essential public services.
For the first time, the Government will apply the principles of the land use framework to their own estate, managing land more strategically to deliver for nature alongside core public services.
The plan is supported by £4.1 million of funding for a series of pilot “lighthouse” projects across the estate. These projects on operational land, including defence training areas, transport corridors and prison estates, will demonstrate how nature recovery can enhance the resilience and delivery of public services. Evidence from these pilots will inform future, larger-scale delivery.
Recent independent analysis indicates that the Government estate has the potential to generate ecosystem services with an estimated value of up to £67 billion where natural assets are maintained in good condition.
This new plan is the first of its kind globally. By managing land more strategically across the Government estate and working with partners, it will support the delivery of Environment Act targets on biodiversity, water quality and woodland cover, and ensure progress to the UK’s commitment to protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030. A digital map of the Government estate will be published by April 2027 to support transparency and improve spatial planning.
The Government estate nature plan sits alongside a wider set of plans published by the National Estate for Nature, a coalition of 26 major landowners who together manage around 10% of England’s land. Members include Government Departments and public bodies, as well as organisations such as the National Trust, the Crown Estate, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, the Church Commissioners and the RSPB.
Together, partners have set out how they will manage their landholdings to restore and enhance priority habitats, and contribute to national targets. These include commitments such as increasing woodland cover, restoring peatlands, and expanding nature-friendly farming practices.
[HCWS147]
Fly-tipping: Residential Areas
Mary Creagh Excerpts(1 week, 3 days 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 chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this very well attended debate. Let me also thank hon. Members from across the House who have made valuable points. It is great to hear from the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople about everything that this Government need to do, but it was under the coalition Government and their cuts that the beginnings of this public squalor occurred. In the so-called big society of David Cameron, we did not realise we were all going to have to become litter-picking Womble troops, set up our own food banks to feed our communities and end up being lollipop crossing wardens as well, because of the severe cuts that happened to local government on the coalition Government’s watch.
It is fitting that we are having this debate at the beginning of London Climate Action Week. Everybody’s environment starts at their front door—it is not something out there in the oceans and forests; it is about stuff that is literally in the streets where we live. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) said, this is a matter of social justice. It is about environmental justice, but also about the poorest people bearing the consequences of environmental crime. It is an epidemic that proliferated under the coalition and it became a pandemic from 2015. The failure to implement any new policy and the starvation of local government that saw local tips close led to this criminal activity and this waste crime epidemic.
Fly-tipping scars our streets and parks and takes pride away but it also robs us, as taxpayers. In the 2024-25 financial year alone, waste criminals—they are not cowboys; they are criminals—evaded at least £1 billion of landfill tax. Every fridge and bit of kitchen equipment dumped as a result of a refurb has not been disposed of correctly in either landfill or incineration; that is unacceptable. We are determined to take back control of our streets, parks and countryside from those criminals.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) talked about setting up the Joint Unit for Waste Crime. Since coming into office, we have boosted the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget for the current financial year by 50%, from £10 million to over £15 million. Over the next three years, we will give the Environment Agency an additional £45 million, so that budget is going up from £10 million to £15 million this year and then up to £30 million—we have trebled it. We are not producing action plans, but putting our money where our mouth is. That will mean more boots on the ground and more drones in the air.
We have pursued major regulatory reforms and boosted the Joint Unit for Waste Crime. Since the Government came to power, the EA has stopped illegal waste activity at over 1,500 sites and has achieved 125 prosecutions, with 10 people going to prison. Crimestoppers has launched a national campaign encouraging the public to play their part by calling 0800 555 111 to anonymously report suspicious activity. I encourage all hon. Members to amplify that campaign, which is running on social media at the moment. Our waste crime action plan is the next step and it is a scale-up. First, we are preventing illegal activity before it starts; secondly, we are strengthening enforcement so that offenders are caught and punished; and thirdly, we are cleaning up the most harmful sites. Let me take each of those points in turn.
First there is prevention. Stopping waste crime means putting legislation through Parliament that will replace the outdated paper systems, an issue neglected under the previous Government, with mandatory digital waste tracking: a single UK-wide platform that will monitor waste movements in real time. Regulators will be able to spot diversion away from legitimate pathways and spot fraud, such as misdescription of waste, at a much earlier stage in the chain.
We have laid secondary legislation that will overhaul the regulation of the waste carriers, brokers and dealers system so that there will be no more Beau Vines registered as waste dealers. We are moving from a light-touch system to full environmental permitting. We are removing widely abused waste permit exemptions on tyres, end-of-life vehicles and scrap metal, and tightening up seven other waste permit exemptions. We are also going after the tax avoiders. HMRC is expanding tax check rules to the waste sector, so if someone’s tax record is questionable, we will ask them questions before renewing their licence.
Mary Creagh
I will make some progress. We are matching prevention with tougher enforcement and pursuing the criminals with every tool in the box. We are increasing the Environment Agency’s budget, as I mentioned, and giving it new police-style powers to intervene earlier, disrupt the criminals and bring them to justice before their illegal operations become established. We have to nip this in the bud when it happens; that is what we know works.
Mary Creagh
No, I will finish my point. The Joint Unit for Waste Crime is strengthening its hand. It is bringing together environmental watchdogs, police forces and the National Crime Agency to dismantle the serious organised crime networks that blight our communities. The penalties for waste crime must match the harm it causes. The carriers, brokers and dealers reform will increase penalties for offenders to up to five years in prison. We know that sometimes those offenders will not be prosecuted for environmental crime but potentially for money laundering because they are not just criminals in one area; they have an entire criminal enterprise of which waste crime is just one branch.
On the clean-up, we are going after the criminals to make sure that they pay. We have worked with other Departments to publish criteria for cleaning up those sites where intervention is most needed. We are currently funding clean-up for Bolton House Road in Wigan, Alan Ramsbottom Way in Hyndburn and Worthing Road in Sheffield. We will go much further to prevent land owners picking up the bill in the future and work with the insurance industry to explore new models to shield farmers, business and land owners from bearing the cost of waste in their areas.
We recognise the role that councils have and the different challenges that they face. Thanks to this Labour Government, they have more powers at their disposal than ever before: issuing fixed penalty notices, prosecuting offenders and launching investigations. Ealing council, for example, has issued 1,993 fixed penalty notices for fly-tipping in 2024-25. When councils say that they do not have the money, it is often that they do not have the will or the skills. They can also seize the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers and crush them—or, for those interested in reuse, as I am, sell them. We have published best practice guidance and case studies on vehicle seizure to give councils the confidence to use those powers.
The National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, chaired by DEFRA officials, has that guidance and Members may wish to bring it to the attention of their local councils. We have secured powers in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 for courts to impose up to nine penalty points on driving licences for fly-tipping offences. That is a strong deterrent and will make people think twice before they do such a job for their mates on the weekend.
We are also consulting on a proposal to give local authorities powers to issue conditional cautions to suspected fly-tippers. Those are a range of pre-court community-based sanctions. We all want to see these guys—it is mostly guys—going to prison, but this Government inherited a court backlog along with prisons full to bursting. However, these cautions could see offenders cleaning our streets or parks in an unpaid capacity, and being required to pay back the cost of cleaning up the waste that they have dumped. It gives local authorities another tool in the box.
I pay tribute to all the volunteers who have worked in this area, not least in my own city of Coventry, including at Destination Ball Hill and the Reverend Matthew Bull at St John the Divine, where I spent a very sweaty two hours cleaning up Willenhall last Friday.
Mary Creagh
I will not.
I went back on Saturday and already someone had littered their Burger King wrapper out of a car. The issue is about people and it is very annoying. As a cyclist, I remember posting a cigarette box back through the window of a motorist who had just littered it right in front of my bike; that was one of my more fruity exchanges.
We need to follow Coventry city council’s lead and have a wall of shame and CCTV, as there is in areas such as Clements Street in my constituency. Regarding the situation in Hexham, there is Waste and Resources Action Programme guidance on the accessibility of household waste and recycling centres. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) to bring that guidance to the attention of his council. It is also important that we have more tidy Fridays. Assistant Commissioner Louisa Rolfe has been seconded from the Metropolitan police to the National Police Chief’s Council to co-ordinate this work between police forces across the country.
I am disappointed to hear about the Lib Dems in Portsmouth. It is really important for us to work with National Highways and crowd everybody into this space.
River Otter: Sewage Pollution
Mary Creagh Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day 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 a pleasure to respond to this afternoon’s debate on behalf of my colleague the Water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who is sadly unable to be with us because she is attending an international conference on the marine environment. I thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for raising this important issue.
This Government are absolutely determined to fix our broken water system. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly set out, the situation we inherited was one where pollution warnings and sewage discharges were commonplace; where regulation was stripped back; where water companies were allowed to mark their own homework; and where there were simply no penalties for failure, with incompetence and pollution rewarded. That stopped with this Labour Government. Not only have we taken action over the past two years; we have seen action this week, with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs sending a letter to the regulator about the investment plans for Thames Water. That action is ongoing.
The River Otter reflects the previous failure. It is poor in the upper reaches, has moderate water quality in the middle and is poor again downstream, with excessive nutrient levels across the catchment. South West Water has not met the standards that people rightly expect. At Honiton, the sewage treatment works has exceeded its permitted flow limits and its performance has fallen short. That is not acceptable, because rivers like the Otter are not lines on maps; they are places where families walk, children explore, and where our nature and wildlife thrive. They are part of our shared national inheritance, and they deserve better.
We recognise that nutrient levels in the River Otter are too high. That leads to excessive algal growth that harms local wildlife, and the Environment Agency has, under this Government, stepped in, challenging South West Water, increasing oversight and requiring improvements. South West Water has had to fix failures in how it monitors and manages its network. Spill levels, as the hon. Member has set out, have been unacceptably high at some sites. Regulators have made it clear that that must improve. We are seeing early improvements, but there is still much more to be done, and we will hold South West Water to account until it delivers.
The Environment Agency is expanding monitoring of the river, and it welcomes the support of local groups, including the Otter Valley Association and Otter River Catchment Action, ORCA. I echo the hon. Member’s tributes to Bruce McGlashan. After 32 years working for the Environment Agency, he retired and had to carry on doing what he was doing as an Environment Agency officer. I send my condolences to his family. I pay tribute to Peter Williams, too—I thank them both for their incredible efforts. I watched the “Dirty Business” documentary about the water industry, and was absolutely furious, seeing the scale of deregulation under the previous Government. Of course, the water companies could do their data dumps, but without a PhD in mathematics, no one could reverse-engineer the maths to see what was really happening.
There are arguments about the data and the sources, which I will come to, but I first put on record my thanks to those people for their work collecting data, raising concerns and building the evidence needed to drive positive change. I pay tribute to similar groups up and down the country who are helping us to hold polluters to account. We will secure a fair deal for customers, we will rebuild public trust, and we will protect the environment to support health, nature and our economy.
The Environment Agency has identified agriculture as the largest source of pollution in the Otter, and we are taking action to tackle it. We are creating a single, clear set of rules for farmers. We are doubling farm inspections, enabling at least 6,000 inspections a year by 2029, while working with farmers to raise their standards. That is an increase from around 700 inspections in 2021. We are increasing funding for environmental land management schemes from £800 million in 2023-24 to £2 billion by 2028-29. That funding targets crucial issues, such as improving water quality.
We are also taking decisive action on sewage pollution, strengthening enforcement and holding water companies to account. We have £104 billion of private investment from water companies to upgrade our ageing, creaking, leaking water infrastructure. That includes more than £10 billion to improve around 2,500 storm overflows in England by 2030 and £4.5 billion to reduce nutrient pollution over the same period, including upgrades to nutrient removal at Feniton treatment works. We have set a target in our environmental improvement plan to reduce phosphorus from waste water by 55% by 2030, putting us on track for an 80% reduction by 2038. We are well on our way to delivering that, and phosphorus removal improvements were completed at Churchinford treatment works in 2024.
We are requiring water companies to ringfence investment so that it is spent on infrastructure upgrades and not diverted elsewhere, and we have, as the hon. Member notes, introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to raise standards and enforce accountability. As of 1 April 2026, water companies must publish annual pollution incident reduction plans. Under the previous Government, reduction plans were voluntary. Now they are mandatory and public, so that everyone can see what the water companies have set out to do.
The Act introduced a requirement for spill monitoring at all emergency overflows, matching the pre-existing requirement to monitor discharges from storm overflows—those are two separate things. It has also given regulators powers to ban bonuses for executives at failing water companies and pursue criminal charges against bosses where needed. We have already stopped more than £4 million in bonuses for the bosses of polluting water companies. This month, we fined South West Water more than £1.8 million after the Brixham water supply incident, which involved cryptosporidium from agricultural run-off. That is a record penalty for a drinking water offence, reflecting the seriousness of the company’s failure. Where water companies fail, this Government act.
I am concerned to learn that South West Water has made statements to local communities that did not accurately reflect the full position. In relation to Honiton, the company told a local group that it had sought a tighter permit limit. That was incorrect. The Environment Agency challenged that directly. The company has since acknowledged that its statement was not a true reflection of events, apologised and committed to issuing a formal retraction. This is what accountability looks like, and we will continue to enforce it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can reassure Marc Astley and the 50,000 petitioners that we are taking action to tackle bonuses given through back-door retention payments. Companies must comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the law.
I am also concerned to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the gorgeous beach at Budleigh Salterton has lost its blue flag status, given that it is a designated bathing water site. We have designated more sites in order to force water companies to up their game, but this is not how it is supposed to happen; beaches are not supposed to lose their blue flags. We will look into that issue.
Unlike the previous Government, we are committed to stopping pollution before it starts. If we take rainwater out of our sewers, we reduce pressure on the system and cut storm overflow spills. Capturing rainwater where it falls reduces the amount of water entering the network. It is estimated that the average household roof collects 85,000 litres of rainwater each year—equivalent to around 4 trillion litres, or 1.6 million Olympic-sized swimming pools, annually across the UK. Of course, that all runs off and is lost, and then we enter summer, there are heatwaves and drought ensues. Managing that water better can reduce discharges into rivers, like the Otter.
In the clean water Bill, which will be introduced in this Session, we will commit to ensuring that regulatory mechanisms and funding support the delivery of solutions. We want to maximise the opportunities offered by better managing rain where it lands. That approach will benefit communities and the environment, prevent flooding and help with urban development, ensuring that policies and services work better to deliver.
We recognise that the water sector does need reform. The clean water Bill will deliver on commitments in the White Paper, driving reforms to transform the water system for good and secure a sustainable system for future generations. It will establish an enhanced regional planning function to help identify lower cost, higher impact solutions across whole catchment areas—looking at the entire river from source to sea, instead of at individual works—and considering opportunities across sectors. That will improve water quality and supply. It will also enable a greater uptake in preventive interventions and nature-based solutions to reduce long-term costs and improve resilience. The Government are committed to improving the regulation of private sewerage to reduce pollution from those systems, which I am sure the hon. Member is aware of. We recognise that the current sewer adoption arrangements need review and will consider how to enact that change.
On the Otter, the Environment Agency’s team carried out over 900 inspections in Devon and Cornwall in 2025-26, including unannounced visits, prioritising the most environmentally sensitive sites, some of which will have been in the Otter catchment. The Environment Agency is currently investigating potential offences at Ottery St Mary’s sewage attenuation tank. It is in the process of agreeing an enforcement undertaking with South West Water and investigating event duration monitoring data from the site. I am sure that will be of interest to the hon. Member, to the campaigners and to everybody who cares about this precious river.
Our water system has not worked as it should, but the Government are taking strong, robust action to fix it. We are acting to clean up rivers and to hold the water companies to account for their pollution, their neglect and their negligence, and we are stopping them from marking their own homework. We are securing record investment to rebuild infrastructure, tackling pollution at its source and restoring trust in this damaged industry. We are delivering a cleaner, healthier River Otter for future generations to enjoy.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Digital Waste Tracking (England) Regulations 2026
Mary Creagh Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days 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 Digital Waste Tracking (England) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I begin by wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North a happy significant birthday, and I look forward to celebrating with her later and at various points throughout the week ahead.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 23 April this year. More than 200 million tonnes of waste are produced in the UK each year, and there is currently no comprehensive way of tracking it. Legislation relating to the transport, management and description of waste has been introduced in a piecemeal fashion over the last 30 years. Large amounts of waste movement data recorded through the current system are either not collected or are required to be submitted only each quarter and, of course, they are collected on a paper-based system. As a result, at a national level, it is difficult to determine where waste is from and what happens to it. At a local level, it is difficult for waste producers to check that their waste has been handled appropriately.
The system’s lack of transparency gives waste criminals opportunities to undercut legitimate waste businesses and to cause harm to our environment and communities. This crime costs the UK economy an estimated £1 billion each year, due to activities such as fly-tipping, deliberate misclassification of waste to avoid paying landfill taxes, illegal waste exports and the operation of illegal waste sites. For investigations, regulators usually need to request individual waste records by serving legal notices, which is time-consuming and prone to document falsification.
Replacing the outdated paper-based system will give the Environment Agency much-needed compliance oversight and help to close the loopholes that rogue operators exploit. The regulations will support those who do the right thing, not those who undercut them and think that “muck” is an accurate waste description or that providing a partial postcode for the source of waste is acceptable. By requiring near real-time information about waste movements to be recorded on a centralised system, the regulations will enable officers to identify unusual patterns, pinpoint high-risk operators, intervene earlier and shape targeted initiatives.
We are shifting from reactive investigation to proactive prevention. The regulations are the crucial first step in transforming the waste industry so that regulators—the Environment Agency—have timely data on waste movements from production right through to disposal.
The previous Government consulted on these reforms way back in 2022. They responded to the consultation the following year, but critically, they did not introduce these changes. This Government are acting. The first set of regulations will mandate that waste receivers operating under an environmental permit make a digital record of waste that comes into their facilities and submit that information to the digital waste tracking system within two working days of the waste being received. A second statutory instrument will be laid before the House next year to extend requirements to capture the full end-to-end waste journey information.
Before I turn to the detail of the legislation, I acknowledge the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Its report highlighted a point of interest on how digital waste tracking will interact with the new packaging extended producer responsibility scheme, or pEPR. Of course, once it is fully implemented next year, the data submitted to the digital waste tracking system will help to reduce fraud in the pEPR system as well.
I turn to the detail of the legislation, which provides a new statutory framework to tackle the problem of waste tracking. It designates the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to establish, maintain and operate the digital system. It requires that permitted waste receivers make digital records of specified information, as set out in schedule 1, before submitting it on to the system. There is a requirement for operators to pay an annual fee of £26, which will be used to recoup the costs of establishing, operating and maintaining the system.
Although there will also be transition costs to businesses of just over £1.5 million over four years between 2026 and 2029, and costs to obtain software estimated at under £39 million over 15 years, those costs are significantly outweighed by the future benefits of businesses no longer having to submit quarterly waste returns and, of course, the reduction in waste crime, which gives legitimate operators more waste to legitimately dispose of. Together, those savings are estimated at nearly £600 million over the 15-year appraisal period. As the illegal businesses—the criminals—leave the industry, there will be reduced unfair competition, more waste for the compliant operators and increased revenue.
The draft regulations introduce a new offence of failing to comply with the legislation and make provision for criminal penalties and civil sanctions, with unlimited fines available to punish offenders. Those who try to commit fraud by entering false information on to the system can also be prosecuted under section 44 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and receive up to two years in prison.
The introduction of digital waste tracking is a cornerstone of the Government’s waste crime action plan, the toughest ever crackdown on illegal waste activity. Through the action plan, we are strengthening regulations; pursuing the criminals responsible with more boots on the ground, more drones in the air, advanced technologies and stronger punishments; and accelerating the clean-up effort.
We are doubling the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget with an additional £45 million over the next three financial years, on top of the £5.6 million increase we had already announced for this financial year—£50 million in total over three years. That will bring waste crime enforcement funding to more than £30 million a year, compared with a miserly £10 million a year in 2023-24.
We believe in regulation for the environment, whether that is in the water sector, as we heard today with the Secretary of State’s statement to the House, or in the waste system. We are also introducing the waste carriers, brokers and dealers reform, tightening the waste exemption system and giving courts the powers to put up to nine points on the licences of fly-tippers.
My message to the waste criminals is clear: we are coming for you, we will track you down and there is no longer anywhere to hide.
Mary Creagh
It is a pleasure to respond to that short but pithy and valuable debate. I am grateful to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, for his comments. He is beginning to remind me a bit of St Augustine, who was famous for his prayer of, “Grant me chastity, Oh Lord, but not yet”, because, as he said, he laid the foundations for some of this work while in government. That includes the EPR system, which he voted for in 2024 along with all his Conservative colleagues. He now stands loudly lamenting EPR, but I just remind him that it is something that his party developed in government and voted for less than two years ago.
I share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration about NOx canisters. I am still mystified as to why they are on sale in the UK. I know they are useful for whipping cream, but we see when we go on Amazon, as I did a couple of years ago, that people who bought NOx canisters also bought little canisters to sell it for £1, £2, or whatever it is they do to create further litter. It is absolutely clear that there is not a sudden, massive interest in whipping cream across the festivals and parklands of this great nation.
In fact, nitrous oxide is a highly regulated substance and a fluorinated gas that we need for some medical emergencies. I remember the glory days of British dentistry, where any time someone went for a filling they got the happy gas so that they did not really mind what was happening to their teeth. Those of us who are old enough will remember that—[Interruption.] I can see nods of recognition. There were various bans of nitrous oxide, but it is still used for women in childbirth. If we have a quota for fluorinated gas, under various UN conventions, we should keep that quota but reduce it and save it for absolutely medically necessary issues, and not allow a huge black market to proliferate in this thing that is allegedly used for whipping cream.
Last Friday, I was out picking up litter and a variety of other things, including a wendy house, that had been fly-tipped in Willenhall in Coventry, and I picked up three nitrous oxide canisters. The day before that I had been to an incinerator, an energy-from-waste plant, where they had shown me how these canisters can burn at incredibly high temperatures. They told me that the canisters should never be put into any sort of incineration, because that presents a danger to workers both on the journey towards incineration and at the incinerator—even though they can come out of the incinerator safely because they are tested to such a high engineering capacity. I thought, “Right, I will not just leave these canisters for the council to pick up; I will take them to a metals recycling facility.” I took them to European Metals Recycling, which is close to my office in Coventry, where I was told, “We don’t take these.” I am not clear where these canisters are meant to be safely disposed of, and if I am the waste Minister and I do not know, I am not clear what everyone else is supposed to be doing. I will start my little battle on NOS—watch this space.
Let me talk to some of the other points that were raised. First, charities and local authorities will have to pay the fees. With this waste system, we have essentially mirrored what His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has done through Making Tax Digital. We have done something that is legible and readable through the back end and that can be used by proprietary software providers, rather than building our own proprietary software and making it clunky and rubbish, which is what Government software schemes are famous for doing. We thought, “How can we turn this on its head and do something that can be used and is fungible and readable across other databases?” We watched what had happened with HMRC and fundamentally designed that in.
The system is in beta testing because I believe in making haste slowly. I do not believe in big-bang changes. I believe in working with a coalition of the willing to test, refine and improve. The fee is set at £26. That includes charities, local authorities—anyone operating permitted waste facilities where commercial waste activities are carried out. The fee recovers the cost of establishing, operating and maintaining the services. It includes costs for things like the digital system build, the ongoing hosting cost and the operation of the helpdesk for users, which is run through the Environment Agency.
The total costs were estimated over a 10-year period and averaged over the total number of operators expected to be using the service once it has been fully delivered, ensuring that those in the first phase will not pay more, so people are not penalised for being one of the good guys. That approach has been agreed by Treasury. We intend to review the service charge once the system is fully operational and we have more accurate data about the number of users on the system. Of course, one of the issues is that lots of people are not on the system, and we do not know where they are, so we will amend the service charge through legislation as needed. The service fee is paid annually to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by users as part of their account registration.
One of the main aims of introducing digital waste tracking is to reduce waste crime. Regulators need to distinguish between someone who is digitally excluded and someone who is deliberately not complying with the regulations. There are provisions in the statutory instrument for the digitally excluded—although in this day and age, if someone is running a company without any sort of computer, we do have to wonder. By not having a criminal sanction for failing to apply for a digitally excluded number or recording that number on written records, it may give the impression that this is less important than digital users applying. It may lead to digitally excluded operators choosing not to comply and there would be gaps in waste movement records, which would undermine the whole system, so we have included that.
On packaging extended producer responsibility, one of the questions that has been around for at least the last decade—it is not a new one; the hon. Member for Epping Forest will have heard it, as I have—is about the need to reduce fraud in the producer responsibility note and the producer export responsibility note system. We have already introduced a number of measures to address that fraud. All reprocessors and exporters who handle any packaging waste will now have to register, collect and report data on packaging waste received, processed, rejected and exported.
The pERP regulation will place requirements on accredited reprocessors and exporters, including monthly reporting of packaging waste reprocessed or exported and monthly data on packaging recovery notes/packaging export recycling note prices by material. Exporters will need to provide proof of receipt at the final overseas destination site to issue a PERN and retain records of the recycling of the packaging waste. Critically, there will also be a new fit and proper person test for operators as part of the accreditation process. In addition, DEFRA has recently consulted on further proposals to enhance the PRN system, target fraud and ensure that packaging waste is managed in an environmentally sustainable way. The results of that consultation will be published shortly.
Digital waste tracking is being introduced in phases, but we intend to mandate the recoding of information about exports of green list waste, also known as article 18 waste, in the system from 2027. So it will come here in April next year and we will look to introduce it from October 2027. The increased visibility of export data will also help to combat fraud in the system.
On litter, local authorities already have powers to take enforcement action. We have been encouraging them to make good use of those powers, because under the previous Government they did not have the cash to pursue prosecutions and actions against offenders. We have published new statutory litter enforcement guidance: “Litter enforcement powers—when and how to use them”. Local authorities now have a legal duty to have regard to that guidance, which will lead to a more consistent approach to tackling litterers across the country.
We have also published a refreshed code of practice on litter and refuse, which sets out the standards expected of local authorities and other duty bodies with regard to keeping land clear of litter and refuse. I pay tribute to the many Wombles and clean-up squads across the country that are doing such great work, but we want to get to a stage where there is no littering and people understand and respect the areas around them.
I will add a final thought on fly-tipping: councils already have powers to seize and search the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers. Again, to support them making better use of that power, we have published best practice guidance and case studies on the website of the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group. We have also secured powers in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 to provide statutory fly-tipping enforcement guidance on using their powers and powers for the courts to award between three and nine penalty points on the driving licences of those found guilty of fly-tipping. Often, we find that fly-tippers are doing a little job for their mates on the weekend. They might be drivers in the week, and this is a little weekend side-hustle. The penalty points would make it harder for offenders to continue dumping illegally if they are disqualified from driving and send a clear warning: fly-tipping is not to be tolerated.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Government on the efforts being made on fly-tipping. We can quite often skirt over just how important these issues are, but in areas where fly-tipping is common, it absolutely ruins the local community. I put on record our appreciation for the work that is being done.
Mary Creagh
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I also pay tribute to his council in Oldham, which wrote to me about a very thought-provoking motion that the council passed. The leader of the council—I am sorry; his name escapes me—said that environmental justice goes hand in hand with social justice. These environmental crimes are predominantly perpetrated against poorer communities. There is a kind of social injustice there that we must not lose sight of. There are certain parts of Coventry that are spotless and have no litter or fly-tipping, and other areas, like Foleshill, the ward where my office is, where fly-tipping is absolutely endemic.
I will conclude by talking about our manifesto commitment to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up their mess. We will soon consult on giving local councils the powers to issue fly-tippers with conditional cautions, one of a range of pre-court community-based sanctions that could see offenders completing up to 20 hours of unpaid work cleaning up streets and parks and paying back the cost of cleaning up the waste that they have dumped on public land. If an offender admits to the crime, agrees to the caution and complies with those conditions, they will not face prosecution. Anyone who spends a couple of hours cleaning up litter and sweating in the hot sun, as I did on Friday in Willenhall, will be very keen not to repeat the experience.
Nationwide waste tracking does not exist, so the costs are uncertain at the moment because we do not have a baseline to go from. However, we have used HMRC’s Making Tax Digital as an assumption as it is a similar digital delivery policy. We have put in a 400% optimism bias to account for underestimation because we do not know what we do not know—the unknown unknowns. There are more firms in scope for Making Tax Digital compared with digital waste tracking—obviously, because not everyone is doing waste. Therefore, economies of scale will differ.
With that, I thank the Committee for its attention, good humour and positive comments this afternoon. I commend the fact that the legislation is widely supported by stakeholders for whom it could not come soon enough and who have been begging for it since the previous Government’s waste and litter strategy was published back in 2019. The hon. Member for Epping Forest asked about the circular economy growth plan. That is going through the normal Government channels and processes. I am sure he will be very excited when it is eventually produced, because that is our whole economy plan: to be a resilient, clean and highly efficient materials nation. The legislation has been highly anticipated by our stakeholders. I am delighted that it is supported by Members on both sides of the House and am thrilled to have been able to present it here today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Waste Tracking (England) Regulations 2026.
Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026
Mary Creagh Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days 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 Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026.
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir John. I am very glad that the rain has managed to hold off so far, so let the summer begin.
The draft order, which was laid before the House on 15 April 2026, is one of the legislative measures being taken to implement the UK’s obligations under the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement—that is, the agreement under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction—the fact that I have had such trouble pronouncing it shows why it is always called “BBNJ”. It helps to implement the UK’s obligations in relation to environmental impact assessments for activities carried on in areas beyond national jurisdiction within the remit of marine licensing. The UK must be able to meet all its obligations under the BBNJ agreement before we can ratify it. The draft order enables this by amending the marine licensing regime.
I will begin by underlining why it is so important that the House supports this legislation. The BBNJ is an implementing agreement under the UN convention on the law of the sea which aims to support the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It is a landmark international agreement that creates a legal framework to protect the two thirds of the ocean that lies beyond any nation’s jurisdiction. These vast waters contain extraordinary biodiversity and ecosystems vital to the health of our planet; they are home to sharks, whales, sea turtles and countless other species, many of which we have not actually discovered yet.
Primary legislation was needed to implement our BBNJ obligations fully. Accordingly, the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026 was introduced last year and received Royal Assent on 12 February 2026, marking a significant milestone in our journey towards ratification. We are now taking forward the secondary legislation needed for the UK to implement the agreement. The draft order is part of that work, and it needs to be made before the UK can ratify the agreement and participate fully in the first conference of the parties, which we expect to take place in January 2027.
The draft order implements the UK’s obligations under part IV of the agreement, which requires environmental impact assessments for activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction that could have a significant impact on the marine environment. Under the agreement, the UK is required to ensure that the potential environmental impacts of any planned activity in these areas are suitably assessed before a decision is taken to authorise the activity. The draft order makes provision relating to activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction so that environmental impacts can be suitably considered in line with these obligations.
Currently, a small number of activities involving deposits, scuttling and incineration are already licensable in areas beyond national jurisdiction, but only two marine licences for such activities have been issued since 2011. The draft order extends the marine licensing regime to additional activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These new activities correspond to the types of activities that are already licensable when carried out in UK waters, such as construction or removal activities. Licensable activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction will include those carried out or controlled by UK persons, as well as activities undertaken from British vessels, aircraft, marine structures or floating containers.
This instrument also makes a number of amendments to the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011. An exemption is added so that several of the new activities will not require a marine licence where they do not meet the threshold for needing an environmental impact assessment or a screening for an EIA as set out in the BBNJ agreement. The exemption reduces the burden on regulators and industry, while still ensuring that we can meet our BBNJ obligations by enabling the new activities to be assessed first, to determine whether they are lower impact or need a full EIA.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
What is the maximum fine for a company that does not comply with this regulation?
Mary Creagh
I do not have that figure to hand, but I am sure that the magic of the officials’ box will enable me to give the right hon. Member the figure by the end of the sitting—or perhaps he knows and can enlighten the Committee.
Steve Barclay
My reading last night suggested that it was just £50,000. It is interesting that the Minister does not know what the fine actually is. What does she think the cost of complying with the EIA requirement would be for a company?
Mary Creagh
That would depend on the activity that it was being asked to do. As I said, only two of these licences have actually been allowed under—
Mary Creagh
I am sure that it is expensive. Does the right hon. Member want to tell the Committee what it is?
Steve Barclay
I fear that I may have read the legislation a little more closely than the Minister. Some media reports suggest what compliance with this regulation would involve for a company. We are talking about conducting an environmental impact assessment beyond national jurisdiction and significant further work. The cost of complying with the EIA requirement could run to a couple of million pounds. For me, the question is not the international ambition—of course everyone in the House wants our marine environment to be protected—but why the Minister is today introducing legislation the cost of compliance with which will be 10 or 20 times the cost of the fine for non-compliance.
Mary Creagh
Having been Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member knows the what is involved in monitoring activity in areas beyond our national jurisdiction. What we know is that this regulation will apply to British vessels, British persons and activities that are licensed and under our control. As I said, only two of these licences have been issued in the last 15 years.
We want the areas beyond national jurisdiction to be protected. Those are often areas of deep ocean, where we do not understand and have not mapped the seabed. During my extended sabbatical I went to see some of the marine science work, including marine mapping, going on at the University of Southampton. We want the high seas to be open and accessible to all. These controls are about making sure that, under this new convention, British vessels are not in breach of international agreements. With the right hon. Gentleman’s permission—
The Chair
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has a perfect entitlement to contribute to this debate, so perhaps he should wait until the Minister has concluded and then choose to make an incisive but pithy contribution.
Steve Barclay
I thank the Minister for giving way. I will take your steer, Sir John, and make this my last intervention. The Minister has tempted me to intervene once more, because the exact justification that she gave for the cost of compliance being 10 or 20 times the cost of the fine relied on enforcement, but the reason why there have been only two licences granted in the period she cited is that there is so little enforcement because this is beyond national jurisdiction. The Marine Management Organisation has no vessels in the Pacific. There is no impact assessment with this regulation. How will it be enforced in areas beyond our jurisdiction if there is no impact assessment and no additional funding for that enforcement?
Mary Creagh
I will correct the record. The magic of the officials’ box has informed me that the maximum penalty is an unlimited fine, not a £50,000 fine, and/or a term of imprisonment of up to two years. That is significant, so it certainly would be worth a company’s while undertaking an assessment, depending on the activity that it is trying to do. If it were deep sea mining and things like that, it might be financially worth it, but it is certainly worth the company thinking about it.
Of course, we do not need physical vessels to do enforcement, because we have eyes in the sky via satellite, and we can map these things. The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire knows that we have satellites, because he contracted with Earth system satellites, which can map down to 100 or 200 metres. We do not need ships there; we can send ships where they are needed and take enforcement action.
Before the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I was talking about the activities that will not need a marine licence and about reducing the burdens on regulators. An exemption will be introduced for the removal of specified subsea cables carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The removal of these cables has a low environmental impact and is considered to fall consistently below the BBNJ screening threshold.
Alongside today’s statutory instrument, I would like to highlight the Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026, which makes corresponding provision for activities within Scottish competence—activities regulated by the Scottish Government under devolved powers. The Scottish instrument adds new licensable activities to the licensing regime under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and makes other changes to that regime. That will ensure that the Scottish licensing framework aligns with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement. The Scottish order was made in March 2026 and will come into force on the same day that the BBNJ agreement enters into force for the United Kingdom.
To avoid dual regulation, so that a marine licence is not required under both our licensing regime and the Scottish Government’s marine licensing regime for the same activity, this statutory instrument provides for an exemption in relation to certain activities that are regulated under part 4 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. It also makes consequential amendments to ensure that existing exemptions and registration provisions can apply appropriately to activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
The statutory instrument implements the necessary changes to marine licensing to enable the ratification of the BBNJ agreement. We are confident that its provisions will improve environmental protections in areas beyond national jurisdiction while avoiding unnecessary regulatory burden.
The Marine Management Organisation’s enforcement strategy includes a range of tools, from advisory letters to formal enforcement action, applied proportionately, based on risk and available evidence. Conditions can be placed on licences, requiring licence holders to keep records and make returns or to provide information to the MMO. It will develop intelligence gateways in areas beyond national jurisdiction to assess where there may be non-licensed activity taking place and how to address it. As it is intelligence-based, we would not be expected to say what those methods would be. Having just talked about satellites, I am sure that the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire will know that that may be one of the routes.
Mary Creagh
Allow me to take a moment to reflect on the importance of approving this legislation. Without it, the UK would not be a position to ratify the BBNJ agreement. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, the “30 by 30” commitment was signed under the previous Government and that is an international undertaking which this Government take very seriously. It is all very well signing agreements—
Mary Creagh
The difference is that we are actually now saying where the money is coming from, how we are going to meet that target, and how we are going to aggregate the land and seas. An undertaking to do something, without having a plan to deliver it, it is not worth the paper it is written on.
Hon. Members will appreciate that future industry activity is difficult to predict in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Our consultation and previous engagement with stakeholders identified some likely activities in such areas, including telecommunications cable activity, marine scientific research, space flight activity, and deep sea mining, but not all such activities will be in the scope of marine licensing.
The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire asked about licence applications and the costs. There have been only two licences granted for an activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. One was for the Virgin Orbit launch in 2022—I am not sure if he was the Secretary of State at the time; there were so many in those two years that I cannot be expected to remember who was where at that time. It was before his time, was it?
Mary Creagh
The other was for a dye tracer study in 2015. I am not sure what that means, but perhaps they were putting in chemicals to trace something—currents, for example. We might think, “Well, that’s a bit weird,” but if it is about finding where the currents and tides go, and where the winds are blowing, it all feeds into the brilliant science and weather forecasting we are able to do here in this country. We do not anticipate many activities being covered—I know the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the volume of activities—although the lack of past case studies makes it difficult to determine the volume of activities that might take place in the future.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest is right to raise the issue of the incredibly important marine environment around the Chagos Islands. It is home to 220 coral species—corals are on the frontline of the climate crisis and we are doing some great work, particularly in Cayman Islands, around tackling stony coral disease—855 fish species and 355 mollusc species, so it is incredibly important. However, I am sorry to say that decisions on what is or is not going to happen with the Chagos Islands are not a matter for Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Ministers, and he is tempting me to stray beyond my brief. So with your permission, Sir John, I will leave it there, and agree it is an important protected area.
Mary Creagh
Thank you, Sir John.
This is a once in a generation step forward in ocean governance, which ensures areas beyond national jurisdiction are managed sustainably, transparently and equitably as part of that biodiversity sharing agreement that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In the absence of this legislation, we would not have the tools to assess and manage activities and their potential impacts.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I was not going to intervene, but this is such a fascinating debate that I cannot help but bring in the fact that Harlow has a coral farm. We all agree that the order is important legislation. Despite some of the to-ing and fro-ing, there is cross-party support for it, but does the Minister agree that international support is also important? Does she get the sense that other countries across the world are implementing the same legislation?
Mary Creagh
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in shoe-horning in the Harlow coral farm. I am sure that an invitation for the Minister responsible for water and flooding is in the post and a visit is imminent. It genuinely sounds exciting. Of course, coral farms are important for working out which species are climate resilient and will be the coral reefs of the future. Coral is not just nice to look at when scuba-diving and snorkelling on holiday. In February, I managed to go on a snorkelling trip in Egypt with a broken wrist, for which I think I deserve some recognition. They make them tough in Coventry! Was Nemo swimming one-handed?
My hon. Friend asks a good question about the issue of coral and other states’ involvement. At all the international meetings I went to in 2024, which was my first year in post, people looked to the UK for our leadership on these UN conventions, particularly given the lack of leadership and withdrawal by other large players in the United Nations. We have been encouraged and exhorted to do that, but the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office leads on treaties, so the actual treaty could not be DEFRA legislation. We found a spot to bring in the treaty in our second year, but I am sure it will receive great acclaim. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), is soon to attend a conference in Kenya at which this SI and the further movement towards ratification will be warmly welcomed. There is also a Commonwealth summit to look at the ocean, as so much of our Commonwealth is affected and is marine facing or marine vulnerable.
The statutory instrument aims to strike the right balance, providing safeguards to protect the marine environment and meet BBNJ requirements, while avoiding disproportionate or unnecessary regulation. I am sure that hon. Members appreciate the importance of the marine environment and the need for effective and appropriate regulation of activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Dr Hudson
I know that the Minister is winding up, and that she has spoken about Ministers going to summits and collaboration, but she spoke about the importance of implementation. I asked specifically about what the Government will do to liaise with key stakeholders in the area, such as the cable sector, marine scientists, merchant navies and so on. The UK has a global footprint, so it is important that this Government take the baton that the Conservatives passed to them and work closely with stakeholders. Can she reassure the Committee that the Government will work closely with stakeholders on the frontline?
Mary Creagh
Absolutely. I recognise that there are concerns about specified cable activity remaining exempt from regulation, but that is based on evidence provided in our consultation responses and discussions with other Government Departments, including the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. I reassure hon. Members that, as a result of that evidence and those discussions, we consider cable-related activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction to be of sufficiently low impact as to fall below the threshold, which is why we are maintaining the current cabling exemption. However, science and industry are evolving in this area, so we are working on it. In the consultation, which we held jointly with the Scottish Government and which was open for four weeks in November 2025, we had only 22 responses from industry research organisations, environmental non-government organisations, consultants and consultancies, public bodies and DEFRA arms-length bodies, which shows that this is quite a niche area.
Eighty-nine other states have now ratified the BBNJ treaty and 145 states have signed it, so there is huge international support. We have only one ocean; although we may call it different things in different places, it is the mantle that wraps around the globe. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest says, we are often blind to the treasures that it holds in its deeps, whether that is the glorious seaweed baths on the Atlantic coast, or the next cure for an ailment or disease. Our ocean is vital to so many of our industries and provides proteins for billions of people, so it is important that we protect it for the future. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mary Creagh Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day 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 thank my hon. Friend for all the work he did for us during his time in DEFRA. This Government are transforming access to nature in this country, delivering three new national forests and nine new national river walks, as well as launching the Wainwright coast-to-coast walk as a national trail in March. East Worthing and Shoreham is benefiting from this—it is home to a spectacular section of the recently launched King Charles III England coast path, which at 2,700 miles is the longest waymarked and maintained coastal walking route in the world.
Tom Rutland
I thank the Minister for her answer and her kind words. The recently inaugurated King Charles III England coast path winds its way through my constituency, passing Lancing’s wonderful Widewater lagoon nature reserve, which I worked with the community—including the World of Widewater committee—to save when it was drying up last summer. Can the Minister set out what health and tourism benefits the newly inaugurated path will bring to coastal communities such as mine?
Mary Creagh
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he did on the protection of Widewater lagoon—holding the water on the land when it is raining and ensuring that it is there during very dry spells is one of the challenges we face. The coastal path will boost everybody’s mental and physical health, and will bring significant opportunity to his businesses in Worthing. We know that visitors to England’s coastal paths already generate £350 million in spending in local coastal economies each year and support nearly 6,000 jobs.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Earlier this year, children from Pannal primary school went to their forest school in Sandy Bank woods, only to find that the path was cordoned off and trees had been felled. What steps is the Minister taking with her colleagues in the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure primary schools have access to forest schools all year round?
Mary Creagh
I am very happy to look into the case that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. It depends on the ownership of the land—sometimes there is legitimate tree felling that has to be done at a certain time of year, normally before the bird nesting season—but if he gets in touch with me, I would be happy to look into that issue.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I am getting a bit of a workout this morning bobbing up and down, Mr Speaker. The nature security assessment is a cross-Government strategic analysis designed to inform planning for potential shocks. It does not make predictions or set policy; it drives a more joined-up approach across Government by identifying climate and nature-related risks, so that they can be managed and anticipated early.
Adrian Ramsay
Turning to a second report that sets out grave risks to our national security, DEFRA civil servants have said that there is a realistic possibility that by 2030, our food, water and natural ecosystems will be at risk of collapse. That conclusion could not be more stark. An article in The Times states that it was the conclusion of a 2024 report commissioned to inform the new Government, but it was not included in handover briefings. Can the Minister confirm whether she has seen that second report, and what action is her Department taking to address its stark findings?
Mary Creagh
I have not seen the report that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but I believe my hon. Friend the Minister for farming has seen it. In December, we published the 2025 environmental improvement plan, which sets out our ambition over the next five years to accelerate progress towards our targets under the Environment Act 2021. Those include ecosystem protection, wildlife reintroductions, species abundance, reducing species extinction risk, and creating more than half a million hectares of wildlife-rich habitat, which will provide critical ecosystem services. We are also delivering our international commitment to protect 30% of the UK’s land and sea by 2030, and we will make more announcements this summer about that.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am sure the Department is already gearing up for the biodiversity COP in Armenia later this year, but what discussions will the Department be having with the Foreign Office about the equally important desertification COP that is taking place in Mongolia, where important issues such as water shortages, the degradation of land and much more will be on the agenda?
Mary Creagh
I know that there will be attendance from Foreign Office officials on that, and I agree with my hon. Friend that the Mongolian COP in August is equally important. It is important with these COPs that we do not look at climate, desertification and nature separately. We need to bring the three Rio conventions much closer together so that we get the synergies. Desertification has not traditionally been seen as a problem in this country but, as the planet warms and our climate changes, we need to take the issue seriously.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Our recent waste crime action plan delivers the toughest ever crackdown on criminality in the waste sector, and fixes the broken system that the Conservatives left behind. We have closed the loopholes that criminals relied on, boosted the Environment Agency with an extra £45 million for enforcement, and launched a national Crimestoppers campaign so that we can root out the waste criminals and protect communities from their harm.
John Slinger
I welcome the new powers for councils to seize vehicles involved in fly-tipping and the Government’s action to further tackle waste criminals, including guidance on covert surveillance, CCTV and drones—something on which I have campaigned on behalf of my constituents in Rugby. There have been several incidences of illegal waste sites and fly-tipping in and around Rugby, and I commend the Environment Agency for clearing it up, but can the Minister confirm how the powers will be used, how councils will be supported and, if they do not enforce action against waste criminals, how they will be helped to do so?
Mary Creagh
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his question. I know about the issues around Coventry and Rugby, and I share his frustration at fly-tippers. Courts now have the powers to issue up to nine penalty points on fly-tippers’ driving licences, to ensure that they think twice before doing a job for their mates at the weekend. We expect these powers to be used consistently. We have the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, and the Environment Agency is stepping in on serious cases through increased funding, stronger powers and joint action.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I thank the Minister for her commitment and for her response to the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger)? It is good to have a policy that seems to be working and, here on the United Kingdom mainland, it is very obvious that it is. I know the Minister is off to visit Northern Ireland; we have similar problems in Northern Ireland, but there does not seem to be the same drive or the same action taken. Will she involve herself with the Minister in Northern Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Andrew Muir, to ensure that he is proactive as well?
Mary Creagh
I am always happy to visit Northern Ireland, not least because I have relatives in Magherafelt. I can tell the hon. Gentleman what we are doing about digital waste tracking. It is now impossible for a cow to be registered, as happened under the legacy system. We will have identity checks, criminal record checks and competency checks, so it will not be a free-for-all. Waste carriers will have to show their permit numbers on advertising and on their vehicles.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is estimated that illegal waste dumping costs the taxpayer over £1 billion. Given that this activity can and does happen at permitted sites, can the Minister assure the House that the waste crime unit has access to both the permit return data to the Environment Agency and the landfill tax returns to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so that that fraudulent activity can be identified? Will she meet me to discuss the Hespin Wood landfill site in my constituency?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend. She is right to draw attention to the loss to the Exchequer from landfill tax fraud and evasion. Our Joint Unit for Waste Crime is made up of EA and HMRC staff, as well as other arms of law enforcement, to ensure that all intelligence sources are tapped in to disrupt waste criminals. The waste crime action plan I mentioned earlier will see the unit strengthened by £45 million over the next three years: more boots on the ground and more drones in the air.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Following the brilliant news that the River Thames at Ham and Kingston is to be designated as a bathing water area, does the Secretary of State think that Thames Water’s proposals to pump treated sewage into the river just a few metres further downstream at Teddington are compatible?
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Given that an estimated 1,446 species in our chalk streams will become extinct without conservation efforts, will the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking to protect against biodiversity loss?
Mary Creagh
We have just announced our largest budget ever for species protection and restoration. We have lots of exciting plans to introduce and reintroduce iconic species. I am particularly excited about the glutinous snail. It is extinct in England, but exists in Lake Bala in Wales. There will be all sorts of exciting reintroductions, from rare sea grasses to exciting snails.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
The great work by my hon. Friends to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas risks being undermined, particularly in the eastern region, where a biomass-fuelled power station is at risk of closure due to the end of Government support. More than half a million tonnes of poultry litter risks being spread on to the land, impacting our water networks. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss how we can prevent that from happening?
Mary Creagh
We are working on successor schemes to the green gas scheme. It is imperative that that poultry litter is not spread on land and that an alternative is found. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this topic.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, as long ago as September 2024, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was notified of a category 1 incident, the most serious category of pollution incident, which occurred near Whittlesey in my constituency. When no prosecution occurred following the incident, I raised the issue on the Floor of the House in March and the Minister promised to write to me. When no response was received after a number of weeks, I escalated it to you, Mr Speaker, in a letter at the end of April. The Department committed to a reply by 8 May. We are now a further month on from that date and still there has been no reply. If the Government have changed their policy and are no longer prosecuting the most serious category 1 water incidents, should that change of policy not be notified to the House, or is it that Ministers simply, despite repeated requests, have no idea what is happening in their own Department?
Draft Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026
Mary Creagh Excerpts(1 month 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 Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The regulations were laid before the House in draft on 19 March. They make targeted but important changes to how we protect endangered species while supporting legitimate and sustainable trade. The regulations are a critical part of the Government’s commitment to securing nature recovery and sustainable economic growth, as outlined in the Corry review, and a practical example of that approach in action.
The UK wildlife trade regulations give effect to our international obligations under the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, or CITES, which ensures that international trade in wild animals and plants is legal and sustainable, and does not threaten species survival. The United Kingdom has long played a leading role internationally in strengthening the convention and combating illegal wildlife trades, and we continue to do so.
In the UK, we deliver CITES controls through a licensing framework administered by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, APHA. Each year, the agency issues approximately 60,000 permits to businesses and organisations engaged in legal and sustainable trade, ranging from the pet trade to horticulture, cosmetics, zoos, museums and orchestras. While modest in scale, this activity supports diverse livelihoods and interests across the UK, but parts of the system are complex, duplicative and rooted in processes designed for trade within the EU. The draft regulations will modernise that framework. They retain strong protections for endangered species, while removing unnecessary administrative burdens where risk is low. Additionally, they will improve efficiency for businesses and regulators, and strengthen enforcement where needed. When new powers are provided for the Secretary of State, their use will be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny. The measures will be tightly defined, applied in a transparent and consistent way, and informed by scientific advice, and only with a clear conservation or welfare justification to do so.
The draft instrument amends four pieces of assimilated EU law and revokes one that is no longer required. Together, the changes strengthen conservation protections, while allowing the digitisation and modernisation of admin processes. We designed the reforms using a precautionary risk-based approach, informed by consultation with environmental non-governmental organisations, industry representatives, enforcement bodies and the UK’s scientific authorities. That input ensures that protections for species at risk of over-exploitation not only remain firmly in place, but are enhanced where the evidence supports doing so.
Let me set out each of the key changes in turn. First, for some low-risk species, the existing system goes further than necessary. Export permits issued by the exporting country confirm sustainability, while import permits issued by the UK authorities add a further layer of due diligence. For the most threatened species, that extra scrutiny is absolutely right and will remain, but for species at lower risk, the draft regulations will allow for a lighter touch import notification instead, so that we keep oversight and traceability while cutting out unnecessary duplication and delay for legitimate businesses. We will identify low-risk species using the best available scientific evidence. Examples may include species of artificially propagated plants, such as orchids and cacti, from highly compliant destinations where the risk of specimens being taken from the wild is negligible. These will be kept under close review and revised if risks or trade patterns change.
Secondly, the regulations streamline the article 10 certificate system that governs domestic trade in the most vulnerable species. Many UK businesses legally breed CITES-listed species or produce derived goods for export. At present, that can require both an article 10 certificate and a separate export permit. In future, in clearly defined cases to be outlined in guidance, the draft regulations will allow an export or re-export permit to serve as an article 10 certificate for a limited six-month period, which reduces duplication while keeping necessary safeguards firmly in place.
The draft regulations also introduce an exemption from article 10 controls for three low-risk Mediterranean tortoise species—I am sorry that I do not have the Latin names to hand, because I would have enjoyed saying them—obviously, when trading them domestically, as they cannot live in the wild here in the UK. These species are widely and legally captive-bred, and they are not yet found in the wild in the UK—although who knows? At some point, that might change. The existing controls were designed to protect wild populations elsewhere in Europe, but in a Great Britain-only context, they add little conservation benefit. Importantly, all import and export controls will remain in place, ensuring continued protection against illegal or unsustainable trade.
Thirdly, the draft regulations will deliver practical improvements for touring orchestras and travelling exhibitions—as a former violinist, that is particularly close to my heart. This will be done through recognising certificates issued from other countries, as well as allowing agents to apply on behalf of performers. The effect will be to remove unnecessary duplication and, critically, to support cultural exchange without weakening important conservation controls.
Fourthly, the draft regulations set clear criteria for the temporary designation of ports of entry for CITES specimens. This mechanism will be used, for example, to support urgent conservation or animal welfare cases. These provisions cannot be used for commercial trade and apply only where the necessary staff expertise and safeguards for effective checks are in place.
We estimate that all these changes and amendments in the draft regulations will cut permit volumes by up to 30% each year, which is in the region of 20,000 fewer permits being issued every year. This should generate significant savings for businesses and the regulator, contributing to the Prime Minister’s target to cut the administrative costs of regulation by 25%.
The draft regulations also strengthen enforcement in cases of non-compliance by extending the use of civil sanctions. We will apply civil sanctions to six additional existing offences under the CITES regulations and the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. These offences involve using, obtaining, trading or transporting CITES specimens without valid permits or with false, altered or misused documentation. This change fills a gap between issuing a warning letter and a criminal prosecution, allowing regulators to respond proportionately while maintaining a strong deterrence. However, criminal sanctions will continue to be used where they are to be deemed proportionate to the infraction. We will publish statutory guidance before the civil sanctions are brought into force, ensuring that the application is consistent and fair.
The draft regulations strengthen the implementation of our international CITES obligations. They uphold high standards of species protection and animal welfare, and they ensure that regulation is targeted where it is most needed. We will continue working closely with stakeholders to support implementation and ongoing compliance. Taken together, they strike the right balance between rigorous protection and practical delivery, safeguarding nature while allowing legitimate, responsible activity to proceed. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Mary Creagh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important points and for contributing to the debate. I say “citeez” and he says “cites”—let’s call the whole thing off. We will have to agree to differ on the pronunciation, but I will respond on to the important work that he cited. He rightly paid tribute to Border Force and Customs and Excise officials involved in the operations to track down and detect illegal wildlife trade. Members in all parts of the House are in passionate agreement on wanting to eradicate that trade.
The other day, I had the privilege of seeing the Animal and Plant Health Agency exhibit at the Chelsea flower show. Last year, it discussed the Colorado potato beetle, which thankfully has now been eradicated. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the biosecurity risk: if such animals got in—for instance, if somebody brought a brightly coloured beetle back from America and it suddenly hit the potato crop—we would be in a world of trouble. This year, APHA had a sniffer dog who was trained to help by sniffing out infected and diseased wood; later that day, the dog had the privilege of meeting His Majesty the King. World-leading science is going on in our Animal and Plant Health Agency.
I also thank the hon. Gentleman for the role his party played in banning keeping primates as pets. I was heading up to Manchester on an Avanti West Coast train when an animal, which turned out to be a spider monkey, escaped from its holder. Sadly, the wi-fi on the train was quite shonky, but I was pretty certain that it was illegal to have a monkey as a pet. It was being kept in a transparent cat carrier, and by the time we got to Manchester, I was feeling like saying, “See it, say it, sorted—there’s a monkey on the train.” My first thought was, “Does it have rabies? I don’t want to be bitten,” and my second was, “I’m pretty certain that this animal is not being kept in an enclosure that is suitable for its needs,” so I reported it to the British Transport Police. I also took a photo of the person who had the monkey, but given that, when asked by somebody on the train, he said that he had gotten it off a bloke at a market, I felt pretty certain that there was no CITES certificate for the monkey and that it had been brought into the country illegally. There is a point about legislation, about enforcement and about what you actually do when you see a monkey on the train.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the new deal for the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and CITES controls. CITES is not currently in the scope of the SPS agreement negotiations. The CITES convention allows for the waiving of controls only where a comprehensive customs union agreement, such as the EU customs union, is in place, so any SPS agreement would not provide a sufficient basis for the waiving of CITES controls between the UK and the EU. However, the reforms in the statutory instrument seek to reduce the burden of CITES controls for movement to and from the UK. Border Force applies strong enforcement of CITES controls at the border and the police enforce them inland. The amendments in the statutory instrument will support their efforts by introducing civil sanctions and other changes, giving them a greater range of tools to help the targeting of efforts to tackle the illegal wildlife trade.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the article 10 regime. We have taken a deliberately targeted and risk-based approach to article 10 certificates. We have not removed the framework because it plays an important role in controlling high-risk trade and preventing laundering. We have simplified requirements in a very small number of low-risk circumstances where there is little conservation benefit, or where there is duplicate paperwork. Those changes do not weaken protections. They apply only in a very small number of low-risk circumstances, and strong controls remain firmly in place for higher risk species and activities. We will keep that under review and consider further changes where they are supported by the scientific evidence.
On the import of annex B, we have taken a targeted and risk-based approach on those import permits as well. We have not removed the import permit framework because it plays an important role in controlling higher-risk trade and preventing laundering, but we intend to simplify requirements in limited, low-risk circumstances where there is little conservation benefit or duplicate paperwork. Import permits remain firmly in place for higher-risk species and activities, and core compliance checks, including Border Force inspections, will continue to apply.
A low-risk list will be developed and kept under review based on the most up-to-date scientific and enforcement evidence. All annex B imports will still require a valid CITES export permit, and the use of import notifications will ensure that we maintain oversight so that we can respond to changes in risk.
Dr Hudson
The Minister is talking about low risk and high risk, and I welcome her comments. Can she give categoric reassurances that the Department and all the enforcement agencies can actually flip to make sure that we can clamp down and change and classify something as high risk if it was classified as low risk initially but subsequent evidence then shows that it has become a higher risk? It needs to be dynamic. Can the Minister assure us of that?
Mary Creagh
I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman those assurances. One of the things that we are currently discussing in CITES is the classification of funga. I know the hon. Gentleman is a fun guy—that is my attempt at a joke. I better not do that again.
Mary Creagh
Okay, I will do some more then—play to the gallery shamelessly.
Funga, as it is called, is neither flora nor fauna. It is a third form of life. With the brilliant mycologists at Kew, we are looking at how to protect fungi in the wild, and at how we bring them in and out. That is because as mushroom kits get more popular, that causes issues for some of our native plants.
The annex B imports list will be drawn up in consultation with the scientific board, and it will be readily reviewed and published. Other activity and work will continue. I can assure the hon. Member for Epping Forest that in other parts of the Department we have adopted a much lower risk appetite for certain other things than was originally recommended to us. We are also developing a process whereby the chief scientific adviser also reviews some of that. As Ministers, if there is any science advice from different agencies that we are concerned about, we have a kind of peer review process on the science.
I really do take the hon. Gentleman’s point about ferns that have almost become extinct in Brazil because of the actions of Victorian plant hunters who stole them, not for their intrinsic value, but just to grow orchids in greenhouses back here. That shows the despoliation that has been going on for at least 200 years since Darwin brought his first samples back on the Beagle. I will be going to Kew on Thursday to do the final digitisation of some of these herbarium samples. They are just incredible and our gift to the world.
Semi-complete, pre-issued permits are currently used in limited circumstances for businesses that meet strict criteria and have shown consistent compliance over time. We will seek to extend their use for certain low-risk imports and exports of live annex B and C specimens to speed up processing for genuinely compliant traders and to reduce routine administrative delay. That is not an automatic entitlement; eligibility will continue to be assessed case by case by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Standard permits may still be required where they are appropriate. Any abuse of the system will lead to appropriate enforcement action, including revocation of eligibility to use semi-complete permits.
We are retaining annex D, which plays an important early warning role in monitoring trade in species and responding to emerging trade risks for vulnerable species—whatever is in fashion on the Instagram reels at the moment—as the shadow Minister rightly said. At the same time, we are modernising how annex D operates by digitising import permits, which will reduce time and expense for businesses. We will continue to keep those species under review, based on scientific evidence.
Moving to the shadow Minister’s questions about animal welfare—I hope that I answered the permit questions adequately—I am grateful for his co-operation on getting the puppy-smuggling ban through. That was a great moment. As a Government, we are committed to delivering the most ambitious animal welfare programme in a generation, as set out in our animal welfare strategy, published in December 2025. Our trade strategy set out that the Government will always consider whether overseas produce has an unfair advantage. Where necessary, we will be prepared to use the full range of powers at our disposal to protect the UK’s most sensitive sectors.
The 2025 puppy-smuggling Act will close loopholes in the non-commercial pet-travel rules that are abused by unscrupulous traders, and it will give us powers to prevent the supply of low-welfare pets into the UK. We will use the powers to prohibit bringing into Great Britain, puppies and kittens under six months old, dogs and cats with non-exempt mutilations; and heavily pregnant dogs and cats. We are committed to introducing those measures as soon as possible, while recognising the importance of timely development to ensure against any loopholes that could be open to abuse.
The EU accepted that in a number of areas under the SPS agreement we need to retain our own rules. We were clear about the importance of our need to be able to set those high-welfare standards. The EU introduced new rules for pet travel on 22 April. They affect the non-commercial movement of pet dogs, cats and ferrets entering the EU from Great Britain. The changes mean that the validity period of animal health certificates has increased to six months; EU pet passports are now restricted to EU residents; pets travelling without their owner must have written authorisation confirming movement within five days of the owner’s movement; and the non-commercial travel limit is now five pets per private vehicle or foot passenger, not per person.
Both Houses have tried to ban trophy hunting several times through private Members’ Bills, only to have them fall in the other place. We have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure full understanding of the issues, and we continue to engage with the relevant stakeholders to determine the most appropriate scope of a ban on the import of hunting trophies from species of conservation concern. They are listed in the appendices to CITES according to the threat that international trade poses to their conservation status. We remain committed to bringing forward a ban on the import of hunting trophies as the most effective way of delivering on our manifesto commitment. Legislative timeframes will be provided once the parliamentary timetable is clearer.
The draft regulations will modernise an important regulatory framework, so that it works effectively for Great Britain. The regulations will support legitimate trade and keep protections firmly focused on the species and risks that matter most. There will be practical improvements for businesses and regulators, while we maintain the UK’s strong record of meeting our international wildlife conservation obligations. With that, I hope that I have addressed the issues raised and that we can move to approving the instrument. I thank all hon. colleagues present for their patience and I pay tribute to my officials for their work.
Question put and agreed to.
Waste Crime: Knowsley
Mary Creagh Excerpts(3 months, 1 week 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 an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I have slightly more time than normal, so I hope that we can have a bit of discussion because I am absolutely passionate about tackling waste crime. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for securing this debate and to all hon. colleagues who made such valuable points.
I say first that we have a programme called Pride in Place. Everyone’s environment starts at their front door, and if their front door has dog mess or fly-tipping on it, or if, as we have heard today, their car is covered in dust from an illegal waste site—or from a permitted waste site in breach of its permits, as the lawyer on my shoulder would say—then people do not feel at ease where they live. Those waste criminals and permit breachers violate our spaces.
Organised criminals, as we heard, are exploiting the waste sector for profit. They have moved in on a large scale over the past 15 years, on the Conservatives’ watch. They damage our environment, threaten public safety and undercut decent businesses doing the right thing, and they are making a lot of money out of it. That happened under the previous Government and was allowed to continue, so that it became a consequence-free crime.
The Environmental Services Association estimates that 20% of all waste in England is illegally managed. That costs our economy more than £1 billion. In the 2024 financial year, criminals evaded at least £150 million in landfill tax. They do not pay it, so we all pay it. Waste crime is organised crime. Waste crime is serious crime, and this Government will treat it as such. We are calling time on waste crime.
What have we done? We have put boots on the ground and we are putting drones in the air. Since coming into office, we have boosted the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget by 50%: it has gone up from £10 million to more than £15 million. When I was Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee in a previous Parliament, before my enforced gap years, I remember sitting and watching pollution happening in our country. I was really frustrated, and I understood the Environment Agency’s frustration that it was not equipped and funded to do its job. We have pursued major regulatory reforms, and we have boosted the joint unit for waste crime.
In the first 18 months of this Labour Government, the Environment Agency has stopped illegal waste activity at more than 1,200 sites. It has achieved 122 prosecutions and 10 people have gone to prison. The action plan that we announced last Friday is the next step up, and it is a scale up. We are calling zero tolerance on this crime in three different areas. First, we are preventing illegal activity before it starts, by getting better at working out how criminals act. Secondly, we will strengthen enforcement so that offenders are caught and punished. Thirdly, we are cleaning up the most harmful sites. I will come on to the site mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley shortly, but let me first take each of those areas in turn.
First, on prevention, we are tightening the rules and closing the gaps that criminals exploit. How? We are overhauling the regulation of the waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime, moving from a light-touch, paper-based regime—where campaigners registered Oscar the dog for a licence—into a full, environmental-permitted scheme. Those paper systems are going. We are going to have mandatory digital waste tracking. There will be a single UK-wide platform to monitor those waste movements—as it goes from the transfer statement on to someone else and on to someone else, as that is where it gets lost and it goes out into the environment—so that we can spot diversion and fraud earlier, further up the chain before it turns up on a motorway.
We are also removing widely-abused waste permit exemptions on three things. The first is waste tyres; we have all seen the mountains that somehow catch fire. The second is end-of-life vehicles, and the third is scrap metals, where we know there is a criminal industry with cable theft and so on. There was a similar site in Wakefield that eventually went bust, owing the taxpayer £60 million.
Matt Rodda
The Minister is making an excellent speech. I am really pleased to hear about the new strategy and determination from the current Government, in contrast with their predecessors. Would she able to address—this is a niche matter, but it is really important in some areas—the issue of abandoned boats? We have a serious problem in our section of the River Thames with sunken boats. When I walk along the river, I can often spot three or four of them. They are an environmental hazard. Fuel oil could get out of these boats—
Mary Creagh
Understood. We are talking about Knowsley, and I am not the canals Minister, but I will take that back to the Department. I am sorry to do the DEFRA silos, but this is not the first time I have heard that. My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
I was talking about tyres, scrap metal and end-of-life vehicles. We are tightening seven more activities that people currently do not need a waste permit for. We are also going after the tax evaders; it is the Al Capone method. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is going to expand tax-check rules to the waste sector. If someone has not paid their taxes, we are going to be asking them questions before we renew their licence. We are going across the chain on that.
Secondly, let me turn to enforcement. We are matching our preventive work with tougher enforcement. We are pursuing waste criminals with every tool in the box. We are doubling the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget, with an additional £45 million over the next three years. There will be more boots on the ground and more drones in the air to stop the criminals in their tracks. We are giving the Environment Agency new police-style powers so that it can intervene earlier, disrupt criminal networks and bring more criminals to justice before illegal operations, such as the one my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley mentioned on the motorway, become established.
Alongside that, the joint unit for waste crime—I visited it in the midlands just a couple of weeks ago, where it is doing some absolutely excellent work—is strengthening its hand. It is bringing together environmental watchdogs, police forces and the National Crime Agency; some of this involves very serious, hardcore, dangerous criminals, so we need some heavy people with us to deal with heavy people. They are getting ready to dismantle the serious organised crime networks that blight our communities.
The penalties for the crime must match the harm. The carriers, brokers and dealers reform will increase the penalties for offenders to up to five years’ imprisonment. Our manifesto made it clear that those who spoil our streets and parks should face up to what they have done and put it right with their own hands.
I am extremely keen that carriers or brokers should have their registration numbers on all their advertising and on their vans. If digitally excluded or older people give their waste to somebody, they should not get the fine. They should be able to clearly see that the van coming to pick up the stuff is a registered vehicle. We should have that confidence, because we as consumers should know that the van is compliant.
We will consult with councils on powers for them to issue fly-tippers—we have heard about them—with conditional cautions to make them clean up the mess they make. What is a conditional caution? I, too, have learned some things: it is an on-the-spot fine of up to £300 and an on-the-spot penalty of 20 hours of unpaid work. We think that clean-up squads are educating people about the harms they have caused, and that getting people to clean up is the best possible way to get them to think twice before they do it again. We will also look at putting penalty points on the driving licences of persistent fly-tippers—again, to make them think twice before they do a job for their mate on a Friday night, shall we say, that may affect their regular employment during the week. We are coming at it at all levels of the chain.
Jim Shannon
I have a quick question. Does that apply to the obfuscation of the vehicles and vans used? If it does, that will also hurt them.
Mary Creagh
Local authorities have those powers already, but they are not very confident at using them, so I have issued guidance to local authorities to say, “Come on—you’ve got these powers. Why don’t you use them?”. One of the things I hear back is that local authorities have to store the vehicles, pay for a pound, and make sure a vehicle is properly illegal before they seize and crush it. But Labour’s Merton council, in south-west London, does an excellent job on seizing and crushing, as does Sunderland city council up in the north-east. They are in my star hall of fame for seizing and crushing a lot of vehicles; I hope that, if we have this debate next year, other local authorities will be in the mix.
Clean-up costs should rest with the landowner. The polluter should pay, and we will go after the criminals to make sure they pay. We are supporting the clean-up of three illegal waste sites, which my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley mentioned, and we have published clear criteria for those sites where intervention is needed most urgently. They include an assessment of the landowner’s capability to clear up the site without Government needing to spend taxpayers’ money.
I understand why the residents of Knowsley want the site next to the M57 motorway to be included in that work. We still need to see the fire risk from Merseyside—that was covered in the last meeting we had—and the Environment Agency is in conversation with the landowner about clearing the site. We are getting cleverer at working out what happens before an illegal waste site is created, and we are going to use satellite technology, as well as drones, to be much smarter about how we move earlier on these things. In the meantime, we are monitoring the situation and working with local partners.
For local authorities that want to clear up waste sites on their land, we are looking to develop a rebate scheme for the landfill tax they pay. We will also look, with the insurance industry, at developing an insurance model to shield farmers, businesses and landowners from bearing the cost of waste dumped on their land through no fault of their own.
Let me quickly return to the issue of St Joseph’s college, because that was not on my radar—I thought, “What problems do we have here?” I have a note that refers to the development of a new golf course bringing waste material on to the site. Let me look into that as soon as possible once I get back to my desk, because if something is going on there we want to get in super quickly and get it done super fast. If it is a golf course, then let it be a golf course—not something else. The key is to raise it earlier and to call 999 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111. If something does not look right and feels wrong, a person must tell the police. It is no good assuming that it is the council, National Highways or workmen. I have spotted vehicles fly-tipping on the M1 while driving back from Coventry at night, and I have called 999 straight away because it is clearly a waste crime in progress.
We heard about the action that was happening on the Simonswood industrial estate, with the Environment Agency. We have had investigations; the Environment Agency has stopped burning and sent reminders to all permitted sites. However, it is clear that the ongoing waste odours and problems mean that further action must be taken. I remember that when we first met, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley told me the site was making Mo Salah sick. I am devastated that he is leaving Liverpool before we have had a chance to make things right.
On Windmill Services, the EA is looking at the next regulatory enforcement step, including revocation of its permit. The EA will conduct site visits imminently to make that assessment and there is a live enforcement case under way. Finally, on Jameson Road, there have been over 500 odour complaints in February, so clearly there is an ongoing problem. We are not going to fix this overnight, but we are doing our absolute best.
I give all hon. Members present from across the House my absolute commitment that we will tackle these rogues. We are coming for them, and we are going to put them out of business.
Question put and agreed to.
Waste Crime Action Plan
Mary Creagh Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
The Government have published our waste crime action plan for England. The plan sets out our zero-tolerance approach to prevent waste crime, pursue the criminals responsible and accelerate the clean-up effort.
People take pride in the places they call home: the streets outside their front door, the parks where children play, and the fields and riversides where they walk. But fly-tippers and waste criminals blight our communities and exploit the waste sector for profit. These people damage the environment, threaten public safety and undercut decent businesses doing the right thing.
The Environmental Services Association estimates that 20% of all waste in England is illegally managed, and that waste crime is costing our economy £1 billion each year. In 2023-24, we lost at least £150 million in revenue due to landfill tax evasion.
Since coming into office, this Labour Government have taken significant strides to tackle the waste criminals. We have boosted the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget by 50%, pursued major regulatory reforms and boosted the joint unit for waste crime. In the first 18 months of this Parliament, the Environment Agency stopped illegal waste activity at 1,205 sites, achieved 122 prosecutions and put 10 criminals behind bars.
The waste crime action plan shows how we are increasing our response to waste crime in three ways:
Prevention. We are strengthening the regulatory regime to make it harder for waste criminals. We are tightening the rules around waste carriers, brokers and dealers to close the loopholes that criminals exploit. We are introducing digital waste tracking to improve accountability and traceability. We are expanding tax-check rules to the waste sector, making waste permit renewals conditional on operators passing checks on their tax records. We are equipping councils and regulators with the tools they need to deter, disrupt and stop illegal waste activity before it emerges or escalates.
Enforcement. Offenders must face the consequences of their actions. We are committing a further £45 million over the next three years for the Environment Agency to spend on waste crime enforcement, up from £10 million in 2023-24. We are going to give new police-style powers to Environment Agency officers to intervene earlier, disrupt criminal networks and bring more criminals to justice. We are investing in satellite technology and drones to improve early detection of waste crime and build stronger evidence for prosecution. We will make fly-tippers join “clean-up squads” and put penalty points on their driving licences. Waste criminals will face penalties that reflect the full severity of the harm that they cause.
Remediation. We are directly cleaning up a small number of the worst sites, starting immediately with site-specific assessments to determine the feasibility of clearing sites at: Alan Ramsbottom Way, Hyndburn; Worthing Road, Sheffield; and Bolton House Road, Wigan.
We are also supporting the remediation of other illegal waste sites, developing a landfill tax rebate scheme with local authorities. We are working with the insurance industry to explore new models to protect farmers, businesses and landowners from bearing the cost of waste dumped illegally on their land.
Waste crime has grown more organised and more damaging. The Government’s response are stepping up to match it.
Through this action plan, we are taking a zero-tolerance approach. We will build a thriving waste sector—safe from exploitation, fair for business and fit for the future—we will catch and prosecute the criminals responsible, and we will restore pride in our communities.
[HCWS1430]