Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr Stringer. I did not do that last week, so the Clerks have clearly made a mark against my name. I will do my best, and I have my team on standby to yank me down, as I am sure you will do. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for asking for this debate. She has been a doughty supporter of Beatson Clark in her constituency and of the glass industry in general. I also thank hon. Members from across the parties who have made valuable points today.

The aim of the reforms is to create a more circular and resource-efficient economy. They are the biggest reforms in a generation. The three elements—simpler recycling, DRS and extended producer responsibility for packaging—will turn the dial on recycling rates, which, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said, have stagnated over the past 15 years and are bumping along at 42% to 44%. Assessments show that getting our household recycling rate up to 65% over the next 10 years will drive £10 billion of new investment in the British economy and create 21,000 new jobs.

[Sarah Champion]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I will make some progress and then give way.

UK circular industries—those that keep products and materials in circulation for as long as possible—currently deliver £67 billion a year to the economy, up from £44 billion in 2008, and provide 827,000 jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) talked about the innovators in her constituency creating new packaging. I will take away the point about weights and measures and see what we can do in a cross-ministerial way.

[Sarah Champion]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I will give time at the end but I want to make some progress.

The annual growth rate of circular industries is 3%, more than double the UK’s overall growth rate of 1.2%. Extended producer responsibility for packaging—pEPR—moves recycling costs from taxpayers to packaging producers. Think about it: not everybody drinks and not everybody shops online, but we are all paying for the costs of collection. We have had a great tour of drinking places, hostelries and amazing producers, but at the moment everybody in the country is paying for that, through council tax and general taxation. These reforms are creating systematic change, and that is hard.

Simpler recycling in England will make recycling easier and consistent. People will be able to recycle the same materials, including glass, whether they are at home, work or school, which will create a step change in the quality and quantity of recyclate streams. That is enabled by pEPR, which will pay for the new costs associated with the change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) mentioned.

We are also introducing deposit return schemes in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland that add refundable deposits to single-use plastic, steel and aluminium containers. I discussed this with my colleague in Northern Ireland last week at the British-Irish Council environment ministerial meeting at Kew Gardens. We had a two-hour debate about how we would co-operate on the circular economy, in particular looking at the challenges of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man—island economies with no real reprocessing facilities—and what we can all learn from each other.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I am going to make some headway.

DRSs cut litter, boost recycling rates to more than 90% and create high-quality materials that industry can reuse. Since it launched in 2024, the Republic of Ireland’s DRS has seen over 1 billion containers returned and a near 50% reduction in drinks container litter. Last week, I met Timmy Dooley, the Minister of State for Environment, Climate and Communications in the Republic of Ireland, who he said he had been sceptical of the DRS but now has the zeal of a convert.

This challenge is changing the way in which retailers and producers think about eco-design. Walkers is starting to use paper-based packaging for crisp multipacks, and many supermarkets are now using paper rather than plastic trays for fresh food. Our vision is to become world leaders in circular design, technology and industry.

These reforms were started by Michael Gove, late of this parish, back in 2018—seven years ago. I remember successive Secretaries of State for DEFRA coming to the Environmental Audit Committee, when I was Chair, and promising these reforms and deposit return schemes. There has been extensive engagement and consultation with business on pEPR, including public consultations in 2019 and 2021. Businesses have had a clear indication, and the scheme has already been delayed twice.

My officials run monthly packaging engagement forums, which regularly draw more than 1,000 attendees, to provide updates and test policy development with stakeholders. I have met British Glass several times to hear its concerns. I met Heineken last September. I met British Glass in October 2024, and then in January at a glass reuse roundtable hosted by the British Beer and Pub Association at the Budweiser Brewing Group. On 11 February, the Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), joined me to discuss the glass sector. We have engaged on this issue.

The glass sector lobbied extensively to be excluded from the deposit return scheme. We respected that position, and kept that approach during the final passage of the DRS and pEPR legislation. Legislation on pEPR was supported on both sides of the House, but sadly the DRS was not. My officials have talked with businesses that make and use glass packaging, and we have listened to feedback to ensure that the fees are set fairly. I am very aware of the issues that the glass sector has raised about dual-use items—items that can be disposed of in either business or household waste streams. It has been difficult to find an answer that works for everyone, and because of the issues raised in the debate, I have asked my officials to consult with industry immediately to find the fairest solution.

There has been a lot of talk about small businesses. Many international pEPR schemes offer no exemption for small business. We responded to UK small business concerns by putting in place some of the most generous exemptions of any scheme globally. The exemptions mean that businesses with a turnover of below £2 million, or that place less than 50 tonnes of packaging on the market, are not obliged to pay fees. Those exemptions apply to approximately 70% of UK businesses supplying packaging in the UK. There are quarterly payment options to help with cash flow for larger businesses, and we will watch the de minimis thresholds carefully. If we raised the thresholds, that would put costs on to the remaining businesses, because local authority collection costs would remain the same.

The pEPR fees for glass are lower than those for aluminium and plastic. Because glass packaging is heavier, it costs more to handle per unit than some other materials. We have worked closely with industry and local authorities to make sure that the costs used to set producer fees accurately reflect the on-the-ground waste management operation costs that every taxpayer currently has to pay. Weight is a driving factor in waste management and it is the most common basis used to determine costs for public and private sector collection; that is why it is central to our approach. But the scheme relies on all producers paying their fair share. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall said, there was a range, but there was unhappiness with that, so in December we introduced a set point of £240 per tonne. The fewer free riders there are in the system—

[Helen Morgan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mary Creagh]

Let me finish my point; I have not made it yet.

The fewer that do not report and pay on their packaging, the lower the fees will be for everybody. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham in previous debates: some people do not report their packaging. I have instructed my officials to work with regulators. We have done a sprint on that and tracked down about 1,800 suspected free riders, with a little over 200 companies under review. I pay tribute to the Environment Agency officials up in Sheffield who have done that, and to agency officials and the Met police, who last week arrested two individuals in London for packaging export note fraud and suspected money laundering. We are going to keep this under review. This work is having a real impact. We will publish the year one base fees in June, and I am optimistic that the result will be an improved picture.

I am happy to give way if Members still have questions.

[Helen Morgan]

Businesses really need to know what that rate will be as soon as possible. The financial year has already started, they have very little headroom in their cash flows and they need to be able to plan. Will the Minister commit to give us that number as soon as possible?

[Mary Creagh]

That number will be published by the end of June and businesses are aware of that timescale.

[Dr Gardner]

There are wider issues with EPR, including for innovative companies supplying new types of packaging. Woolcool produces wool-based packaging that is compostable and biodegradable, but it is classed as worse than polystyrene because it is so innovative that it is unclassified. Will the Minister agree to look into that?

[Mary Creagh]

I will look into that. I know that wool is used in certain packaging situations. In a way, its usage is too small to register, but we will look at all these innovative ideas and how we keep things in circulation for as long as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) mentioned many pubs—did he mention Greene King?

[Jacob Collier]

indicated assent.

[Mary Creagh]

He did. Greene King, of Bury St Edmunds, has already started using reusable glass bottles in 65 pubs served by its Runcorn depot. It has collected over half a million bottles since January. I reassure hon. Members that I am alive to these issues and we hope to make further progress.

Plastic Recycling in Leamington: Environmental Impact

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). I know his area well and he has made a powerful and compelling speech on behalf of his constituents. We have a commitment to transition to a circular economy and to try to prevent waste from occurring in the first place, but where it does occur we need to manage it in the most resource-efficient way possible. That is really important for the management of plastic waste. We want to minimise the use of plastics, and it is clear that we need to recycle them to prevent them from being landfilled or incinerated.

My hon. Friend has described a litany of distressing incidents, including the failure around planning permission being given for this light industrial estate so close to residents’ houses and the dreadful examples of children asking their parents, “How can I eat my dinner without flies flying into my mouth?” That is something we would not wish on our worst enemies, and I am truly sorry that his constituents have had to put up with this terrible situation.

Plastics for recycling come from a wide range of sources across households and industry, and they need to be cleaned before recycling. That is a note to all of us when we chuck our dirty, unrinsed yoghurt pots into the recycling. Someone has to deal with them later on. There is no such place as “away”. If we want the material to be suitable for remanufacture, we have to clean up our own mess before we hand it on for materials reprocessing. It is clear that, in this case, this activity has impacted on my hon. Friend’s constituents.

We have regulations in place to protect communities. Recycling plants are holders of environmental permits. Those permits are issued by the Environment Agency and they impose conditions on operators about waste handling, in order to mitigate—that is, reduce—environmental risks such as odour and noise, as well as other pollution risks. The Environment Agency regulates the holders of those permits by making periodic visits to inspect activities, to ensure that they are in line with the conditions of the permit. I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend has been conducting his own unannounced visits and I do hope he finds a way to continue them, or finds other people to do them for him in the event that he is barred. The EA works with the operators of facilities to ensure compliance, issuing through guidance and advice and, when necessary, serving notices on an operator to mandate actions to improve compliance, such as changes to how they carry out the work or how risks are managed.

I am really sorry that residents are experiencing odours and flies in South Leamington, Warwick Gates, Heathcote and Whitnash. The Environment Agency and Warwick district council have been working together to investigate these issues, but having heard what my hon. Friend has said tonight, I would advise him—I will do my best with this through my private office—to ensure that the Health and Safety Executive is also made aware of the unhygienic working practices that workers at that site are clearly experiencing. If it is bad in the neighbouring houses, I am keen to hear what it is like for people taking their breaks and eating their packed lunches on that site, because I cannot imagine that it meets modern working condition standards.

I understand that the Berry Polymers plant in Leamington Spa sources its material largely from municipal waste, which it cleans on site before recycling into material to go back into manufacturing. The site permit requires an odour management plan, which controls the treatment for the washing of plastic, as well as several other potentially odorous—that is, smelly—processes. As these activities are included in the permit, appropriate enforcement action can be taken should odours be assessed as contravening the plan. The odour management plan includes details about the storage and handling of incoming materials that are recognised as potentially odorous.

The current permit conditions in relation to the open water treatment plant to treat water used from the washing of plastics are being reviewed by the Environment Agency to ensure that all required conditions are in place to regulate the activity. I have a regular Environment Agency update and will be asking for regular updates on this plant and for it to be added to my risk update reporting.

The Environment Agency was first made aware of residents’ fly issues in July 2023, as my hon. Friend says, with a volume of odour reports also being reported in August. It visited two sites in the area regularly, including the Berry Polymers site, and required action to be taken to prevent risks of odours and flies. The actions were to implement fly monitoring, provide evidence of pest management training for staff, and consistently improve pest and odour management plans. As my hon. Friend says, this has been going on for nearly two years.

In January 2024, an external entomologist—an insect specialist—was contracted to conduct a site inspection. Following their recommendations, an improvement plan was produced with further actions. Fly control boards were installed at the plant to kill flies, and fly traps were also installed inside and out to kill flies and allow species of flies to be monitored.

The Environment Agency also asked for volunteers in the local community to conduct fly monitoring in their homes. I sort of agree with my hon. Friend when he asks, “Whose job is it?” I understand residents’ reluctance; only one person responded. Data collection and evidence are an important part of compliance and permit regulatory activity, so if we want action to be taken, we have to have the proof, so I recommend that he re-engages.

In August and September 2024, the monitoring recorded that numbers of flies were not at levels likely to cause distress. However, the Environment Agency continues to investigate all odour reports received and has undertaken 26 unannounced site inspections where odour has been assessed. An additional 11 odour assessments have been conducted in the local area, where sustained odour at levels likely to cause offence has not been identified. However, I take on board what my hon. Friend says about constituents vomiting in their cars as they drive past—he has given a graphic description of the impacts. An odour assessment was carried out on Saturday 1 March. Multiple locations within the locality were visited. Faint and sporadic odours were identified. However, these were not detected at the site boundary. Since March, odour reports have increased—again, it is a hot weather issue. There were 31 reports in March and 32 in April.

In April, the operator notified the Environment Agency of an issue with an on-site sedimentation tank and maintenance was carried out on 25 April to address it. On 15 April, the EA required the operator to provide further information regarding maintenance of the waste water treatment plant, staff training and odour monitoring. A response has been received and is being assessed. Officers carried out further off-site amenity checks on 25 April. No odour or notably elevated fly numbers were noted. A further site visit was conducted last week on 7 May, and no breaches were identified. There were no off-site amenity issues.

The EA is committed, as am I, to ensuring compliance at the facilities that it regulates and that all appropriate measures are in place. I think my hon. Friend will agree— he was very generous in his speech—that we have taken very swift action to tackle waste issues across the country. The EA will continue to respond to reports of odour and flies, and to proactively inspect Berry Polymers and any other permitted or exempt site in the area that it considers a potential source of flies or odour.

The local environment team and the local council have worked together to ensure that residents are kept up to date with investigations and findings through an online community page and monthly briefing notes, but I understand that residents might feel helpless and hopeless. I encourage them to continue taking action and to report fly, odour or noise issues linked to permitted sites, including Berry Polymers, through the 24-hour Environment Agency hotline on 0800 80 70 60. Those reports help the Environment Agency and partners to investigate and assess the impact of all issues.

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comprehensive response. The frustration is that, after two years, there is real fatigue among the community about the district council, the Environment Agency and environmental health not listening and taking this problem seriously, so I do not think that we can just complete online forms and rely on them to respond. If Berry Polymers does not change, this is the last chance for it. We have seen video evidence of its washrooms, with flies flying around. The place needs shutting down if there is one more example of its failing to maintain proper conditions in the workplace or the wider environment.

[Mary Creagh]

I cannot, as a Minister, pass judgment on any permitted operator, as doing so could be prejudicial to any ongoing or potential enforcement action. My hon. Friend has had a letter from the Environment Agency—I have seen that letter. We must move from a world in which regulatory activity is focused on activity rather than on progress. I am very keen that the Environment Agency should make progress with the fly and odour issues that he has spoken about so eloquently.

I will, as I say, keep a close eye on this matter. I will push officials for clear and unambiguous action to ensure that, if we have another warm summer, my hon. Friend’s constituents are not suffering in what can only be described as utterly horrible and unacceptable living conditions.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

6. What recent progress he has made on the Surrey hills national landscape—area of outstanding natural beauty—boundary variation project.

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

On this 80th anniversary of VE Day, I pay tribute to the city of Coventry, which suffered so grievously in the blitz. The commemoration was marked at the old and new cathedrals with the lighting of the torch for peace, a brilliant initiative from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to mark the contribution of my city to the war effort.

Natural England’s work to consider the Surrey hills national landscape boundary variation has reached the conclusion of the second statutory consultation phase. The responses received will be completed shortly and the analysis of those and the results will be published in early summer.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt]

On VE Day, I remember the role of Dunsfold aerodrome in my constituency, which played a vital role in the battle of Britain.

I thank the Minister for her response. She knows that the proposed expansion of the Surrey hills national landscape will have a huge impact by improving biodiversity and natural protection in villages such as Dunsfold, Tongham, Bramley, Wonersh and Shamley Green in my constituency. Before she makes the final decision on whether to go ahead, will she spare the time to meet me so I can explain to her just how important the expansion is to my constituents?

[Mary Creagh]

I am always happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman. This and the Yorkshire wolds are under active consideration, as I am sure he is aware. There is a legal process to be followed ahead of that, but I know his constituency and will be very happy to meet to discuss the matter further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to tackle fly-tipping.

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

Under the previous Government, fly-tipping skyrocketed by 20%, leaving communities buried under an avalanche of rubbish. This Government are clearing up their mess, tackling the waste cowboys, closing the loopholes that allowed waste crime to flourish and cleaning up Britain. We will hunt down the fly-tippers with the latest technology, including drones and mobile CCTV, introduce new powers to seize and crush vehicles and increase prison sentences to up to five years for those transporting waste illegally.

[Gregor Poynton]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I recently had the pleasure of meeting with the West Lothian Litter Pickers, who are doing so much in my Livingston constituency to reduce the causes and symptoms of fly-tipping and littering, but it is scandalous that their work is needed. In Scotland, the latest figures show that only 1.2% of fly-tipping incidents have resulted in a fixed penalty notice and a mere 0.2% in a criminal prosecution. Does the Minister agree that, in sharp contrast with this UK Labour Government, who are taking a zero-tolerance approach and cracking down on fly-tipping, the Scottish Government’s record in this area is, quite frankly, rubbish?

[Mary Creagh]

I am sorry to hear that the SNP Government are not taking firm action, but perhaps where we have led the way, they would like to follow. I congratulate West Lothian Litter Pickers and pay tribute to Keep Britain Tidy, whose Great British spring clean, backed by the Daily Mirror, helped to tackle the 30 million tonnes of litter discarded on our streets each year, including 5 billion cigarette butts. Each cigarette butt can poison 1,000 litres of water. If we are serious about marine litter, we have to pick up our butts—and perhaps a little less talk and a little more action from the SNP.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I recently met with the Philpot family at the diverse and successful Barleylands farm in my constituency. Fly-tipping is a major concern for them and other local farmers, and they are working together to address it. They told me that, although fly-tipping is a major issue, it is not the existential threat that the tax increases this Labour Government are imposing on them are, with the national insurance tax increases and the massive rises in agricultural property relief and business property relief. They are right, are they not?

[Mary Creagh]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on weaving in a farms question on fly-tipping, but he is right—[Interruption.] Calm down.

[Mr Speaker]

Please, let’s calm down; this is a very important day. I am the decision maker on whether questions are right or wrong anyhow.

[Mary Creagh]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We know that fly-tipping is a very big problem for farmers. I have visited fly-tipping sites near Watford in the last month and spoken to farmers about what they have to do to clear them up. It is clear that many Tory-run county councils are not playing their part in cleaning up fly-tipping and making the prosecutions that act as a disincentive to these criminal businesses and their business models.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking to help reduce the cost of materials for arable farms.

Global Deforestation

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policies to limit global deforestation.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this debate, Mr Vickers. I know how important these matters are to your constituents in Brigg and Immingham, as they are to mine in Brent West.

It may seem strange to start a debate on policies to combat deforestation by speaking about rivers, but I want to pose a challenge to colleagues this morning, to see whether any of them can name the largest river on the planet. I will happily give way to anyone who thinks they can.

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

Is it the Plate?

[Barry Gardiner]

No, it is not the Plate. It is not the River Nile, and it is not the Amazon, but if anyone thought it was the Amazon, they are getting close. The river I am speaking of is actually, for the most part, invisible and airborne. Every day, 20 billion cubic metres of water—that is 20 billion metric tonnes of water—is pushed up into the atmosphere by the forests of the Amazon basin. That water does not stay in the atmosphere; it is not like evaporation from the oceans. It is generated by a unique combination of the organic forest interacting with the inorganic atmosphere. It is seeded with microscopic spores of pollen and fungi. These make the Amazonian clouds heavy, which means that all that water rains back down across the continent, replenishing the forest and irrigating a land mass that otherwise would probably be a desert. The Amazon river as we know it—all 4,000 miles of it—pours just 17 billion tonnes of water into the Atlantic ocean every day, so the invisible river of transpiration beats it by 3 billion tonnes a day. Imagine the power it takes to push 20 billion tonnes up into the atmosphere.

On Brazil’s border with Paraguay is the Itaipu dam, the second most powerful hydroelectric power station in the world after the Three Gorges dam in China. Itaipu’s capacity is 14 MW. That is about four and a half times the capacity of Hinkley Point C, if Hinkley ever manages to get built. We would need 5,000 Itaipu power stations to push the 20 billion tonnes of water up into the atmosphere that that forest does every single day.

Forests are amazing. The Amazon is not alone, of course. The second lung of our planet is the Congo basin in Africa, and while we are talking about famous dams, it is worth noting that the Aswan dam, some 2,000 miles away, relies for 85% of its power on water that the Congo forest transpiration has deposited into the Ethiopian highlands, coming down through the Nile to Aswan.

Forests are amazing, or, to be a little more scientific about it, forest ecosystems provide critical and diverse services to human society. They are a primary habitat for a wide range of species. They support biodiversity and conservation. Forest growth sequesters and stores carbon from the atmosphere. It contributes to regulation of the global carbon cycle and mitigates climate change. Healthy forests produce soil and conserve it. They stabilise stream flows and water run-off, preventing land degradation and desertification. Forests reduce the risks of natural disasters such as droughts, floods and landslides. They contribute to poverty eradication and to economic development by providing food, fibre, timber and other forest products for subsistence and income generation. They are a key genetic source for the pharmaceutical industry, contributing to global human health, and they even serve as sites of aesthetic, recreational and spiritual values in so many cultures.

Forests may be home to 80% of land species, but they are also vital to the survival of our own. They produce 40% of the oxygen we breathe, support 1.6 billion livelihoods and play a crucial role in holding back a climate disaster on a massive scale.

What about deforestation? That has been happening for a long time. In fact, since the end of the last ice age, the world has lost one third of all its forests—that is about 2 billion hectares, or two United States of Americas. But even though it has been happening for about 11,000 years, the rate of acceleration is rather recent and incredibly alarming. More than half of all the forest lost since the Pleistocene has gone in the last 125 years—1.1 billion hectares gone.

The drivers of deforestation are well known. Agricultural expansion remains the single largest cause, and according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, is responsible for 88% of global deforestation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that it contributes 11% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Similarly, in its report on deforestation in January last year, the Environmental Audit Committee identified what we might call the seven deadly sins of deforestation—the seven commodities that are driving 90% of global deforestation: beef and leather, soy, timber, palm oil, paper, rubber and cocoa.

However, the EAC was only picking up on the Global Resource Initiative taskforce’s recommendations from 2020. I commend the previous Conservative Government for establishing the GRI taskforce under the chairmanship of Sir Ian Cheshire as part of the 25-year environment plan. Sir Ian realised that if the market was to transition to sustainable commodity supply chains, it would need Government to adopt a strategic, co-ordinated approach to align and accelerate action.

The Government’s response to the taskforce’s 14 recommendations showed real understanding of the issues. They said:

“When nature’s free services fail, the poorest people suffer first and worst. Over a billion people rely directly on forests for their livelihoods—including indigenous peoples who look after around 80% of biodiversity.”

They continued:

“Protecting and restoring mangroves, forests, and peatlands could provide around a third of the most cost-effective climate change solutions we need, while supporting species and helping communities adapt to become more resilient. Shifting towards more sustainable forms of agriculture would not only protect the planet’s lungs, but it could add a further $2.3trn in productive growth to the global economy and create a further 200 million jobs by 2050…We know that there is no pathway to Net Zero emissions—or indeed the Sustainable Development Goals—that does not involve protecting and restoring nature on an unprecedented scale. But despite the huge contribution nature can make, it attracts just 3% of global climate finance.”

I suspect that the excellence of that written response is directly attributable to the noble Lord Goldsmith. But an excellence of understanding requires an excellence of follow-through, and that was less excellent.

It is true that in response to the taskforce’s recommendation to mobilise

“a global call for action to tackle deforestation and build sustainable commodity supply chains in the lead up to COP26”,

the Johnson Government did deliver a call to action—but a call to action and action are two different things. Yes, more than 100 global leaders signed up to the pledge to halt deforestation by 2030, and, yes, 30 financial institutions, managing nearly $9 trillion in assets between them, promised to disclose the

“deforestation risk and mitigation activities in their portfolios”

by 2023, and to eliminate harmful practices from their portfolios by 2025. But ’23 has come and gone. Today it is 2025, and we are still not eating the

“guilt free chocolate…that’s carbon not calorie guilt free”,

that Boris Johnson boasted about. We are nowhere near on track to halting forest loss by 2030.

One of the things that fuels people’s disillusionment with politics is that so much fanfare surrounds policy announcements, but so little of the hard graft of delivery gets done after the announcements have been made. The public understand that our diets and supply chains are deeply entwined with this issue. We may not see the bulldozers or the farmers who are eking out a living with slash and burn, but the products we consume every day, from chocolate bars to cooking oils, link us directly to the deforestation that we say we want to stop. If we told the public that we had just destroyed the entire New Forest, they would be horrified, yet that is the area of forest that our failure to enact the due diligence recommendations has eradicated since 2021. With that knowledge comes the understanding that we are complicit.

But there is only so much that people can do through their individual action and choices. That is why the taskforce’s recommendations about a due diligence obligation were so important. It said that the Government should “urgently” introduce

“a mandatory due diligence obligation for companies that place commodities and derived products that contribute to deforestation on the UK market”,

and that they should take action to ensure that similar principles are applied to the finance industry. That due diligence obligation would require companies to analyse the presence of environmental and human rights risks and impacts within their supply chains, take action to prevent or mitigate them, and publicly report on actions taken and planned. The financial sector would also be covered by a similar mandatory due diligence obligation, requiring it to exercise due diligence to ensure that its lending and investments do not fund deforestation.

The taskforce demanded action, and in the Environment Act 2021 it got a pale version of it. The Act introduced measures to prohibit UK businesses from using commodities grown on illegally deforested or occupied land. At the COP28 summit in Dubai in 2023, the UK delegation announced the list of commodities that could be included in environmental law and explained that businesses with more than £50 million in global annual turnover that use more than 500 metric tonnes of commodities a year would need to source from land they could prove was not illegally deforested.

Although well intentioned, by focusing on legality, the Act failed to hold out an absolute standard of whether the supply chain was in fact involved in deforestation. It ignored the fact that politicians such as Jair Bolsonaro would simply change their domestic legislation to grant legal status to what had previously been illegally deforested land, and so get round the Act’s intention.

The failure to impose adequate due diligence on companies, banks and finance houses and institutions has meant that, since the Glasgow declaration, UK banks have provided more than £1 billion to companies that present a forest risk. Last July, UK investors still held £1.4 billion-worth of assets and shares issued by these companies. The largest 50 of those investors make up 99% of the total UK forest-risk investments, yet 18 of them were actually signatories to the net zero asset managers initiative. Sadly, just eight have made any clear public commitment to eventually removing deforestation from their portfolios. That leaves 42 that should be ashamed of themselves.

Three names stand out, but for all the wrong reasons: HSBC, Barclays and Standard Chartered. Between them, those three banks have provided 97% of the £4.5 billion-worth of credit lines for forest-risk companies since the Paris agreement was signed in 2015. It is not just in government where there is a gap between policy and action. In 2017, HSBC committed

“not to provide services to customers either directly or indirectly involved in deforestation”.

In fact, it has provided credit lines amounting to £1.9 billion to forest-risk companies such as JBS, the world’s largest meat company, which, despite a record of corruption and forest destruction, just last week was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission to list on the New York stock exchange, giving it access to new sources of finance and capital markets. It is, of course, just a few months since JBS dropped its net zero by 2040 climate pledge, claiming, “Well, it was never a formal commitment.”

The Environment Act was an important marker that the UK takes seriously its role in the global supply chain, and that it wants to lead the way and manage the responsibility that comes with it. But a marker only stands in place of action for so long. Four years later, it has become an ironic sign of failure.

UK financial institutions continue to bankroll deforestation. Trade agreements lack meaningful environmental safeguards, and indigenous land defenders face daily violence and intimidation. Unsustainable logging fuels forest destruction; weak governance and corruption continue; and infrastructure projects and mining operations further encroach on forested lands, fragmenting ecosystems and threatening indigenous territories. Land tenure insecurity, poor enforcement and a lack of economic alternatives all conspire to make deforestation a systemic problem.

There can be no one silver bullet but, my goodness, there must be a desire to start. With COP30 this November being hosted in Brazil, there is a compelling case to move from intention to delivery. First, the Minister knows only too well that we must urgently expand the due diligence regime to cover all forest-risk commodities, whether legal or illegal, under producer country law. We should introduce criminal liability for companies knowingly profiting from deforestation, and require UK banks and investors to disclose their deforestation risk.

There will need to be a phased timeline, but my question is not when it will be done but why it has not been done already. If we understand where the blockage in the machinery is, perhaps we can help apply a bit of pressure to assist the Minister in getting it done. I know she will be keen to do so. Some say the blockage is in the Cabinet Office, some say Northern Ireland and the Windsor framework. I would point out to the Minister and her ministerial colleagues that the strong due diligence measures of the European deforestation legislation are due to come into force in December this year. It would be best if the regulation of the whole of the UK were consonant with that. Will the Minister set out a clear timeline for the full implementation of schedule 17 to the Environment Act?

Secondly, the UK must champion a trade model that values environmental protection and human rights. As the UK is in advanced trade negotiations with the EU and India, and to a lesser extent with the USA, what discussions has the Minister had with her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade about the need to embed deforestation safeguards and environmental standards in all future trade agreements? I immodestly recommend to her the blueprint set out in the Labour party’s green paper of 2018, entitled, “Just Trading: What would a just trading system look like?”, when I was shadow Trade Secretary.

Thirdly, the tropical forests forever facility—TFFF—championed by Brazil, will inevitably assume centre stage as we progress towards Belém and COP30. By using arbitrage between the cost of long-dated Government bonds and loans and the returns of a more diversified portfolio, the TFFF fund seeks to provide a long-term payment for conservation and restoration of tropical forests. The facility would help to address a significant market failure, placing a value to the ecosystem services that those forests provide, and returning that to the forest communities that curate them.

Will the Minister tell us how the UK will be involved in the TFFF? What conversations has she had with colleagues in international development? How will the fund prioritise and reward the role of indigenous and traditional knowledge partners in forest stewardship? She knows that indigenous peoples need specific legal protections, recognition and direct funding. Forests thrive when indigenous rights are upheld. Our aid and climate finance must prioritise those locally led solutions. That is fundamental, not just for nature and climate mitigation, but for justice, for addressing poverty and for human rights.

The establishment at the convention on biological diversity COP16 meeting in Rome of the Cali fund, which commits 50% of its resources to indigenous communities, was an overdue recognition of their role as custodians of forests and the nature and biodiversity that make them. I ask the Minister to update the House about the steps our Government are taking to help operationalise that fund, and to ensure that its resources reach those local communities quickly and without loss. Can she tell us whether and how indigenous communities are represented on the fund’s board of management, and how the Cali fund will work alongside the TFFF? Is the UK planning to invest in the TFFF, and now with the 40% cut in official development assistance from 0.5% to just 0.3% of GNI, what will happen to the £11.6 billion that was ringfenced for climate in ICF3, and the £3 billion within that that was further ringfenced for nature?

After years of declining indicators, we now have an opportunity to reverse the trend of deforestation. I am proud of the direction that our Labour Government have taken since July, from creating a special envoy for nature to committing to deliver three new national forests. Domestically, the Government are investing up to £400 million in tree planting and peatland restoration over 2024-25 and 2025-26. However, if we are to lead globally we must also act globally, and that includes how we mobilise capital. Public funding is crucial, but on its own it is not enough. We need to unlock private finance to support conservation and sustainable development, especially in regions safeguarding the planet’s remaining great forests, and that means scaling up tools such as green bonds, blended finance and debt-for-nature swaps. The City of London can and should be a hub for that kind of innovation, not only for climate finance, but for nature-positive finance.

We sometimes hear the environment and the economy pitted against each other, as if nature is a subset of the economy. Of course the truth is the other way round, because without nature and the ecosystem services that it provides, there is no economy, and the most vital part of that nature is our amazing forests.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) on securing this debate on such an important issue, and on taking us to the Amazon forest and its atmospheric river. That was a brilliantly poetic way to talk about the aerial rivers that forests produce, and an important way of explaining ecosystem services. We sometimes talk about the forest as if it is an economic asset, which of course it is, but we are not very good at the poetry.

We know that trees bring us peace, shade and joy, as well as all the other stuff. It is important that we talk about the emotional and spiritual connections that trees bring to people and to places, and the threats that they face from deforestation, whether legal or illegal. I very much take my hon. Friend’s point about illegal versus legal deforestation, which is an observation that I also noted about the previous Government’s approach.

This nation is afforesting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) stated. We are planting a new national forest, the Western forest, which the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) mentioned. Indeed, I was delighted to go there and plant a crab apple tree as part of the agroforestry part of that. The forest will deliver flood prevention services and, critically, link up ancient woodland, which has become fragmented in the landscape. It will stretch from the Forest of Dean right down to the Mendip hills—a truly massive undertaking.

We are here to talk about deforestation, which is an issue that touches on many different Departments, including the Departments for Business and Trade, and for Energy Security and Net Zero—I have a DESNZ official with me in the Box, as well as officials from DEFRA. That three Ministers are responsible for international forestry—those from FCDO, DESNZ and myself—shows the complexity around this issue, and explains why I have about 25 different notes in my hand. I do have a prepared speech, which I will try to deliver, but I will also try to answer questions as we go along. If Members feel that we are getting to five to 11 and they have not had satisfaction, I ask them to intervene on me, but I will try to get through my notes.

First, tackling the climate and nature crises is central to the UK’s national interest, for both security and prosperity. Our forests are a strategic asset, and protecting them is fundamental to achieving the Government’s vision for a world free from poverty on a liveable planet. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West said, nature is the monopoly provider of everything that we need to exist. It is not a subsection of the economy; the economy is a subsection of nature.

More than 1 billion people rely on forests for sustenance and their livelihoods. We have heard, in the many passionate and brilliant speeches from colleagues, that forests provide food, energy, water and medicines worldwide and play a vital role in global economic resilience. They host most of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity, including the slightly terrifying giant otters from the Amazon that we can see at Chester zoo. I have never seen anything like them—they are utterly terrifying animals, like something out of “Jurassic Park”, the size of a Great Dane and quite terrifying for those of us who are used to the more manageable British otter.

Forests contain rare and endangered species and, of course, plants that are essential for modern medicines. Almost everything we have, whether aspirin from willow or heart medicines from foxglove digitalis, has come from ancient herbal and medical practices. The biodiversity COP’s Cali fund is an important statement and an important way for the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and beauty companies—who profit from those discoveries and now have access to the data sequenced internationally —to make a contribution to protecting and preserving the future discoveries of medicine and the beauty and cosmetics industry—because their future innovations are literally on fire.

I am pleased that UK officials led the establishment of the Cali fund, as hon. Members know. We will officially launch it at London Climate Action Week in June. I hope we will be able to say more about that in due course. We are also hosting the conference of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—IPBES, the equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for nature—in England in February 2026, and we hope to make an official announcement about that. Next year will be a very big year for nature.

We know that forests are major carbon sinks: 662 billion tonnes of carbon, equivalent to 15 years of human-made emissions, are stored in them. They cool our planet, providing up to 1° of cooling at mid latitudes. Hon. Members have made brilliant speeches, so they do not need to hear from me about the problems of deforestation, but time is running out. Deforestation is pushing critical biomes such as the Amazon towards potentially catastrophic tipping points, from which they will not recover. We are seeing annual Canadian wildfires, and even wildfires in our own country, with peat fires. All that is putting a massive strain on forest ecosystems.

I am just as concerned about the collapse of the Russian and Canadian boreal forests, to use another slightly jargonistic word; those northern forests are as important to our ecosystem services and our wildlife as the tropical mega-forests. It is essential that we protect, restore and manage forests in a cost-effective way to tackle climate change while supporting livelihoods. Often, the forest is seen as less economically valuable than other land uses such as cash crops, agriculture, infrastructure and urban development. I remember, on a visit to the eastern Congo in 2008, seeing the Batwa forest people living in a tea plantation. Their forests had been cut down as a cash crop, and they were living among those tea bushes because of the disastrous security situation obtaining in South Kivu at that time.

To halt deforestation, forested communities and countries need money to conserve forests. It must become more positive to conserve them than to clear them. That means three changes: an economic shift that values forests and rewards sustainable practices, governance reforms that support effective forest stewardship and tackle illegal activities, and market transformation here in this country to grow green enterprises, protect nature and enhance local livelihoods—not only livelihoods in forested countries, but changing the way that we as consumers purchase. We have heard about consumer demand leading to 35,000 hectares of forest loss overseas.

We import 45% of our food and 80% of our timber; we are the second largest importer in the world after China. That creates resilience problems for the future. Many sectors are underpinned by forest goods and services. A loss of forest will disrupt UK supply chains and businesses, pushing up prices for consumers and undermining our national resilience.

On the point my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West made about the financial industry, I had a meeting yesterday with Sacha Sadan of the Financial Conduct Authority—not specifically on deforestation, but about the sustainability branding of investment managers. I am pleased to say that the FCA, as the regulator, is taking strong and firm action to clean up greenwashing. If they are called sustainability funds, they have to comply with a series of rules and recommendations. That is why many funds have pivoted to “stewardship”, because they can no longer use “sustainability”. I say that for us all to understand what is happening in the financial context.

We are setting significant steps to protect and expand our domestic forests. Our key achievements include a legally binding target to increase tree cover to 16.5% of England’s land area by 2050, and planting more than 21,000 hectares of woodland across the UK between 2023 and 2024, including 5,530 hectares in England, the highest rate in a generation. When we see this year’s figures, they will be even higher. That is good news on the England tree-planting target. There has been some fallaway in Scotland and a slight change in the mix.

I take on the board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) to increase our conifer planting, because that is the productive forest we need. I am going to visit a factory constructing timber housing in Kenilworth and Southam on Friday; I am coming to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) for a three-day visit, because it is so difficult to get to, and to see the brilliant timber production that is going on there, as well as enjoy a midsummer night sky. I have much to do and look forward to.

Internationally, the previous Government persuaded partners to commit to halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. We want a just transition for forest-positive economies. That means securing development and the livelihoods of indigenous peoples and local communities, while tackling climate change and protecting nature. Through overseas development assistance, we support stronger forest governments.

I have been asked about ICF. We continue to support Brazil in its development. To begin with the TFFF, we are also supporting Brazil in its development. We cannot commit to an investment while work is still being done to develop the mechanism, but we will, of course, consider it in due course. Forests are a pillar of the UK-Brazil partnership, and we will support Brazilians ambitions for COP30, including through co-chairing the forest and climate leaders’ partnership, which I believe is covered by my colleague, the Minister for climate change.

On UK-China relations, we continue to work with key partners, including Indonesia and China, to support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change global stocktake objective to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030. On TFFF, we are providing technical assistance. We are involved in all the technical workstreams on environmental criteria, financial mechanisms and governance. From what I have seen, that seems to be similar to the Cali mechanism, which tries to crowd in funding from the private sector as well as public finance, because there is a limit to how much public finance can support this.

[Barry Gardiner]

If the Minister could clarify whether indigenous communities are represented on the board of the Cali fund, that would be really helpful.

[Mary Creagh]

I am afraid I have absolutely no idea; I will have to write to my hon. Friend. That is genuinely not my area.

We welcome the positive conclusions to the COP in Rome. The key outcome is the launch of the Cali fund, which will drive benefit sharing from the use of DSI—digital sequence information—on genetic resources, allowing companies using this information to direct funds towards indigenous people and local communities who safeguard biodiversity. At the biodiversity COP, for the first time we created the process by which IPLCs now have a seat at the table, which is very important.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) mentioned the UK-Indonesia joint energy transition. As I have said, we will continue to work with key partners, including Indonesia and China, on the stocktake that supports the objective of halting and reversing forest loss by 2030. Future ICF is subject to business planning this year and to the spending review from next year. I am meeting the Minister for International Development this afternoon to discuss our approach on that; this is all work that is happening at the moment.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a particularly important region, but it has received less attention and less climate finance than the Amazon and south-east Asia. We are committed to working with others to secure the next phase of support, which will be announced at COP30, for the forests, people and biodiversity of the Congo basin countries. That will sit alongside the pledge for IPLCs’ land tenure. We know that communities are better able to protect ecosystems when their land rights are secure, and that areas managed by IPLCs are better protected than any other areas. The Foreign Secretary has already announced that the UK will lead on this IPLC land tenure pledge.

[Sarah Champion]

Will the Minister be covering the regulations on due diligence and when they will be published?

[Mary Creagh]

I am coming to that. Legislation complements the measures I have described. The UK timber regs aim to eliminate demand for illegally harvested timber, and the EU’s timber regulation continues to apply, unamended, in Northern Ireland. Both regs require operators that place timber on the market to implement due diligence and review their supply chains, and a recent review of the UK timber regulations demonstrated that they have led to a reduction of illegal timber in UK supply chains.

Over the past 12 years, our delivery partner, the Office for Product Safety and Standards—which, again, is part of the Department for Business and Trade, so not my area—has reviewed the due diligence systems of more than 600 businesses and issued 100 warning letters and 100 notices of remedial action. Recent notable enforcement by OPSS includes the prosecution of luxury yacht maker Sunseeker International, which received a fine of £360,000 plus prosecution costs in relation to illegal imports of timber from Myanmar and Africa.

At home, the Government must also abide by the rules we have made. The Government’s timber procurement policy requires all Government procurers and suppliers to prove the legality and sustainability of timber. We will only accept sustainable timber, and we have a wider approach to encouraging legal and sustainable forestry domestically and internationally. We are currently reviewing the timber procurement policy, with the aim of securing better recognition of British certification schemes such as Grown in Britain and FLEGT—forest law enforcement governance and trade—licensed timber.

We are at a critical moment for forests, and the international community must go further and faster to deliver our ambition. We need to tackle nature loss and enhance planetary stewardship. We are working to unlock more finance for nature, promote deforestation-free agriculture and reform global supply chains. Supporting indigenous rights and access to finance are also vital, and require targeted efforts across all tropical forest basins.

COP30 in Brazil, home to the world’s largest rainforest, will be a pivotal moment. We are working closely with Brazil and other partners to ensure that forests and nature take centre stage. We are partnering with Guyana as co-chairs of the forest and climate leaders’ partnership to build a valuable forum for driving wider ambition.

Agricultural expansion, particularly for a few key commodities, is the primary driver of illegal deforestation worldwide. As colleagues have said, the Environment Act made provision for the Government to bring forward legislation to exclude commodities. We recognise the urgency of the task to ensure that UK consumption of those commodities—

[Barry Gardiner]

Before the Minister runs down the clock, I just want to say that it is clear from Members across the House that we will not accept any further delay to the due diligence regulations, and that they must be placed not just—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Recycling of Tyres

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. What a joy it is to be back in Westminster Hall to discuss everybody’s favourite subjects: the materials economy, waste crime, and how we are going to tackle waste crime, after a decade and a half of a lot of talk and very little action—as the Elvis Presley song goes. We will have a little more action under this Government. As part of our plan for change, we will clean up Britain, crack down on waste cowboys and close the waste loopholes. I am keen that we all work together on a cross-party basis to achieve that.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Waste cowboys have been a big issue around the villages of my constituency, as I have said previously. I appreciate the Government’s focus on the circular economy, particularly from the Minister, because I know that she is incredibly passionate about this issue. Does she agree that the focus on our circular economy is important not only for the environment, but to tackle the criminality around fly tipping and other areas of waste crime?

[Mary Creagh]

I do indeed. The amount of money and resources allocated to tackling environmental crime was steadily reduced over the term of the previous Government. There has been a sense that these are somehow victimless crimes. I listened to the “File on 4” documentary, and it was deeply upsetting to hear about the fire and the death of local people at that plant. There is always a victim. There is no such place as “away”. We have only one world, and we have to stop treating our rivers, lakes and seas as sewers, and stop outsourcing our material problems to other countries.

[Sarah Dyke]

In 2021, Natural England downgraded the Somerset levels and moors Ramsar area and the water quality there to “unfavourable declining”. Somerset Wildlife Trust has attributed the microplastics to worn tyres in the environment. It is obviously a really concerning pollutant. What steps is the Minister taking to make manufacturers take greater responsibility for the contribution that their products make to microplastic pollution on the Somerset levels and moors?

[Mary Creagh]

That is a really interesting fact, and not one that I have come across. I will take that away and look at it. As with many of these things, I am responsible for waste and materials and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice is the Water Minister, so things often fall between the gaps of segmented policy brief allocations, but we will look into that and get back to her.

I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this debate and other hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. This Government want to be good stewards of our country and planet’s resources, our prosperity, and our economic and environmental resilience, so the loss of any of those resources concerns me greatly.

We have seen the damaging impacts that makeshift furnaces abroad have on people’s health and the environment, and the illegal batch pyrolysis of tyres is linked with other criminal activities that cause harm to the environment, people and communities. It is unacceptable that illegal exportation in this country is part of that supply chain.

We take the reports from “File on 4” and others very seriously. The Environment Agency is working with Indian counterparts to ensure that waste, including waste tyres, is recovered and recycled lawfully. That is a joint UK effort, and DEFRA works closely with all four UK regulators to ensure that there is a consistent approach regarding controls on the export of waste across the United Kingdom. Scotland banned the export of whole tyres back in 2018, so there is inconsistency. What has that meant? It means, possibly, that whole tyres in Scotland have come down to England and Wales for export, but who knows? It is hard to say what the flows are doing.

The Environment Agency is conducting an internal review of how it regulates the export of waste tyres. I and my DEFRA colleagues look forward to that review’s findings, and we will carefully consider its outcomes when it has been completed.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

Can I just finish this point? The EA is independent. It is important that we do not prejudice the ongoing review. My understanding from officials is that it will report at the end of June, and I look forward to discussing the outcomes of that review with them. I will ask them to write to the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills with detailed answers to her questions on the scope of the review. And on digital waste tracking, we will launch that from April 2026 and will provide further details on the scope of that in due course.

With tyres, as with other waste, our priority must shift from throwing things away to reusing and recycling more. We will do that by breaking the linear “take, make, throw” model and by seizing the opportunity to become leaders in circular design, technology and industry. We will increase the resilience and productivity of the UK’s economy, create highly skilled new green jobs up and down the country, and help our economy to keep more of the critical resources on which it depends. In doing so, we will fulfil our manifesto commitment to reduce waste and to accelerate to net zero.

We have a Circular Economy Taskforce that includes experts from industry, academia, civil society and beyond to help us to develop a circular economy strategy for England. That is supported by sectoral road maps detailing the interventions that the Government and others will make to drive circular growth and enhance our economic resilience. The Transport Secretary will be responsible for one of those road maps, and the others will concern agrifood, chemicals and plastics, textiles and waste electricals. We have a lot of different sectoral road maps, and I urge the Tyre Recovery Association to feed into that working group.

We have lots of ideas about how to reuse materials for a different purpose and they are all coming to the fore. The problem is that some ideas will win and some will lose, and we are in the stage where we are not quite clear about what is the right thing to do, and there are lots of good counter-arguments.

In the case of tyres, the rubber crumb produced by recycling them has a range of applications. The hon. Member mentioned, for example, that it can be used to produce asphalt, but it can also be used as a surfacing material in children’s playgrounds. The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) mentioned a responsible and long-standing business that is doing the right thing, but is looking around the landscape, thinking, “Hang on, why are we doing the right thing when the cowboys are undercutting us?” The principle of fairness is important, as is enforcement of the law as it stands—before we make new laws, we should look at enforcing the laws we already have.

We have a competitive market in the UK for waste management services. New people and innovators are always welcome to join the field. There are a lot of management options available to waste handling operators; they need to be selected according to market conditions and local needs. Operators need to look at the waste hierarchy and the need to ensure the best available outcome for the waste. I am very interested in the Australian model and the Australian experience. I know that my officials have been in contact with Australian Government officials.

[Sarah Dyke]

The Minister mentioned Tyre Renewals in Castle Cary. I would very much like to welcome her to Glastonbury and Somerton to meet Tyre Renewals so that the company can show her what it does.

[Mary Creagh]

I will do a deal: I will come as long as we can go to The Newt, which I understand is the sponsor of this year’s Chelsea Flower Show. I have been reading all about The Newt, so I have been looking up Castle Cary and seeing how easy it would be to get to—my private office will not be very happy with me for saying that.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister also meet Henry Hodge, who is part of Black-Ram Recycling and one of the people who informed me about this particular problem with tyres? That is in the constituency just next door, so it is an easy trip.

[Mary Creagh]

We can never spend enough time in Wiltshire, Dr Murrison, so we will see what we can do.

On the T8 exemption, we need to ensure that the UK’s house is in good order. The impact that waste criminals have on people’s lives is terrible, but poor performance in the waste industry is also a massive problem. It undermines the many excellent operators and responsible waste businesses in the UK, of whom we should be rightly proud.

We are determined to reform the way that the sector is regulated to mitigate environmental impacts, and we are considering plans. The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills mentioned the review in 2015, and there was a consultation in 2018. I have been pressing my officials as to why, a mere seven years later, nothing has happened. But she will have noticed that I have not followed in my predecessor’s footsteps; inertia is not my middle name. I have been very demanding of officials on this issue and I recognise the importance of removing the T8 exemption for the industry and the wider benefits of doing so. I am happy to tell the House that DEFRA’s intentions in this area, along with our priorities in the waste and recycling space, will be announced very soon.

I will close by thanking the hon. Member for securing this debate—but let me just check that I have answered her questions. I have covered the review, digital waste tracking and the retention of the circular economy. She asked about the Environment Agency review. The EA is looking at its own regulation. As part of that review, it will check its understanding of its powers and legal duties and ask, “Are we doing the right thing?” It will look at how it manages information and intelligence received from third parties. If people have evidence of waste crime, I encourage them to report it anonymously through Crimestoppers—so people do not have to give their name and address and worry about reprisals. That intelligence sharing is really important.

That review might also make recommendations for amendments to the EA’s legal and regulatory powers. The hon. Member can be reassured that I will not sit around twiddling my thumbs when I get that report.

[Tessa Munt]

It is really helpful of the Minister to ask people to contact Crimestoppers, but I wonder whether the Department can do more to demonstrate how it is prosecuting people who break the law. Enforcement is incredibly important—

[Mary Creagh]

We are not the regulator; it is for the Environment Agency, as the regulator, to do those prosecutions.

[Tessa Munt]

We need to tell people when it is doing this stuff.

[Mary Creagh]

That is a very good point, but that is not the Department’s responsibility; we have the regulator and it is its job to do the prosecutions. There is a correct separation of power.

We have engaged with the Indian authorities, including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, to help to ensure that this waste is recovered and recycled correctly, because small-batch pyrolysis is also illegal in India. There will be a delegation to meet officials in the autumn to strengthen relationships and discuss this matter further—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Waste Incinerators

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

What a pleasure it is to speak under your chairship, Ms Lewell, I think for the second time in a fortnight; we are truly blessed to see each other so frequently. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for raising this important issue and congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House who have taken part in the debate. We have heard some disturbing stories; I was horrified to hear about the fire in Carlisle and the consequent impacts that had, particularly on local children.

As we have heard, the process for extracting energy from waste through incineration is an important issue up and down the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South has drawn attention to the Sinfin waste treatment facility in Derby. He will understand that it is not for me to comment on individual decisions that are for waste authorities to make; however, I am able to say that the operator will need to apply to the EA for a variation to review the permit before it can be recommissioned, which would include a comprehensive assessment of measures to prevent odours and pests. If the recommissioning does happen, the EA would ensure that a robust commissioning plan is in place to prevent any adverse environmental impacts, including from nuisance. He asked whether my officials would meet him to discuss his many concerns; I am happy to offer him that undertaking.

I am sure council tax payers in Derby and across Derbyshire are disappointed that a facility that promised so much and cost so much has yet to treat waste, but I am pleased to set out the progress this Government have made in delivering the long-awaited recycling reforms, our circular economy ambitions and our position in relation to energy from waste. I do not think anyone can accuse us of being slack in those areas. I am sure that through the magic of Hansard and the Government processes, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) will shortly receive a response to the letters that he has written to Government colleagues in the MHCLG.

Let me take you right back, Ms Lewell, to 15 years ago, when the Conservative party was governing in coalition. Basically, over the last 15 years recycling rates have stalled, and in some places gone backwards. Too much waste is still dealt with through incineration or landfill. More than half of waste collected by local authorities in 2023-24 was incinerated, and just 41% was recycled. Incidents such as those that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised—he and I go back a long way—have really damaged people’s confidence in our recycling system. That incident of litter turning up in Indonesia shows us that there is no such place as away. We only have materials.

In an uncertain and turbulent world, we need to take steps to address this, and we have done so at pace. We have introduced reforms that will create 21,000 green jobs and stimulate £10 billion of investment in our recycling capability. That is what underpins our ambition to recycle 65% of municipal waste by 2035. We will get from 41% last year to 65% in 10 years’ time. That is a bold ambition. These are the biggest changes to waste recycling since the last Labour Government introduced the landfill tax back in 2001-02. This is a step change.

I would gently point out that not everybody in this room voted for the deposit return scheme, which is one of the three big pillars of reform that the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) developed when he was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) was absent for the vote in the House on the deposit return scheme. I am glad that somehow, despite his absence, he may have supported the reforms that he worked on as a Minister.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On recycling, does the Minister agree that one of the problems is that there are too many collection systems that operate differently in different boroughs and different places? Secondly, people living in flats often find it very difficult to store waste for weekly collection, and the levels of compostable waste recycling are very low in those places. Does the Department agree, and is the Minister prepared to take any action to improve those rates of recycling?

[Mary Creagh]

I have set out the actions that we are taking to drive up recycling rates, one of which is to put paid to the proposal we inherited for up to seven bins through the simpler recycling reforms. We have been really clear that we will have black bin waste and mandatory food collections in every local authority, because that does not happen. It obviously happens in Islington, but it does not happen with uniformity across the country. Mandatory food waste recycling came in for businesses on 1 April this year, and it will come in for local authorities on 1 April 2026. That standardisation of recycling and collections should help us all to do better and play our part.

I take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s point about collecting from flats. There are really serious problems. One issue is that recyclable waste is often put into black bins, so they get full very quickly, when actually a lot of stuff could be taken out. The deposit return scheme, the simpler recycling reforms and the extended producer responsibility scheme are really big changes developed under the previous Government and carried on by us at speed, because we have no time to waste. We have to move away from our linear, unsustainable “take, make, throw” model, where we just extract things, make things and throw them away. We want to end the throwaway society, and for things that are made in Britain to be built to last, as they were in olden times.

[Steve Barclay]

Just to follow the logic of the Minister’s point, if more recycling is being promoted by the Government, which is what she has set out, self-evidently both the composition of waste and the existing capacity for incineration will be sufficient. In their December paper, the Government said:

“While there are a number of waste incineration facilities that are consented, but not yet under construction, it is highly unlikely that these will be brought forward.”

If that is the Government’s expectation, and if the Minister is increasing recycling and the capacity is sufficient, why not give clarity to the public and her own Back Benchers by saying, “No more incinerators”?

[Mary Creagh]

The right hon. Gentleman asked about a couple of things in his speech, so I will respond to those first. He asked about composition analysis—we are getting into deep technical detail—and it is about what is actually being incinerated. What is being burned? The right hon. Member for Islington North asked why we do not just put plastic in the ground, as it would just sit there, inert. What is going into incineration?

My understanding is that the emissions trading scheme was consulted on under the previous Government—that bringing local authority energy-from-waste facilities into the ETS from 2028 was consulted on in 2024, so it was an in-flight proposal—but I am very happy to be corrected if I am wrong. The residual municipal waste composition study, covering the period from May 2024 to May 2025, will be published later this year, and I know we cannot wait. It will be interesting, because it is essentially the baseline. It is where we will see if the changes are going to start feeding through.

We said in our manifesto that we would reduce waste by transitioning to a circular economy, which is one of the Secretary of State’s five priorities for DEFRA. I am really proud to be the Minister responsible for that.

The right hon. Member for Islington North asked why we cannot just landfill waste plastics, but there are wider environmental impacts from landfilling plastics than simply carbon emissions, including the issue of microplastics. We do not yet fully understand how plastics degrade in landfill in the long term. Emerging research is exploring the potential of plastic-degrading bacteria in landfills, which could break down plastics and in turn impact greenhouse gas emissions. However, I gently say that we cannot solve today’s problems by storing them up for future generations.

The UK emissions trading scheme is minded to expand the scope of the emissions trading scheme to include energy-from-waste facilities. A consultation on this was published in 2024, which included a call for evidence on incentivising heat networks. With the energy-from-waste plants, there is electricity generation, but there is also a massive excess of heat. Most of that heat just dissipates, but it would be much more efficient to use it, as Coventry city council has with its mile-long pipe under London Road, which heats the local swimming pool or Coventry University’s buildings. I understand that the authority will respond in due course.

At the end of last year, we set out that we will require proposals for new facilities to demonstrate that they will facilitate the diversion of residual waste away from landfill or enable the replacement of older and less efficient facilities. This position reflects the evidence and analysis we have published. It also reflects the waste hierarchy and is congruent with the transition to a circular economy.

Even after the successful delivery of our recycling reforms, there will be sufficient residual waste capacity to treat forecast municipal residual waste arising at national level. On that point, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South is correct. However, there are five areas in England where more than half the residual waste collected by local authorities was sent to landfill in 2023-24. Landfill was also still relied on for an estimated 5.4 million tonnes of non-municipal, non-major mineral waste in 2022, which is the most recent year for which data is available.

We know about the waste that goes into our bins, but there is a lot of other stuff coming out of construction sites, and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and I had a chat about this issue in the Lobby, but the analysis the Government published at the end of last year sets out the regional disparities and the regional capacities. It is a good read.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I am listening to the Minister’s comments about capacity. I appreciate that she may not have the specific details in front of her, but I would be interested to know whether Cambridgeshire sits within one of the undercapacity regions, and whether that is why so many incinerators are being built in those constituencies.

My other point—I appreciate this is slightly tangential—is that residents of the village of Pidley in my constituency will find themselves equidistant from two incinerators if both are approved. Is there a minimum distance that a village can expect to be from an incinerator? If so, what is it?

[Mary Creagh]

In law, as I understand it, it is for local planning authorities to decide on planning applications. The hon. Gentleman will be surprised to hear that I have not memorised the full 60 pages—I do my best, but I am just not that good. I am very happy to write to him about the Cambridgeshire point, but he can see it online.

The consultation proposed aligning the ETS with the extended producer responsibility for packaging to allow local councils to pass the emission trading costs from the incineration of plastic packaging waste to the producers of plastic packaging. It also sought views on how best to support local authorities in managing ETS costs.

It is not for the Environment Agency to decide where an energy-from-waste plant is built, or whether it is the right solution for treating waste. It can revoke environmental permits only where there is clear evidence of ongoing non-compliance.

I have discussed simpler recycling, and we heard some excellent examples from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) about food waste, including Too Good To Go. The Government have set up a £15 million food waste grant to tackle on-farm food surplus.

We have also set up the circular economy taskforce, bringing together experts from the Government, industry, academia and civil society. It will work with businesses on what they want to see to create the best possible conditions for investment. We are developing a new circular economy strategy for England, which will mean an economy-wide transformation in our relationship with our precious materials. It will kick-start the Government’s missions to have economic growth, to make us a clean energy superpower and to accelerate the transition to net zero. Through our efforts to tackle waste crime, of which there is a great deal in the waste sector, we will take back our streets.

On our capacity announcement, we know there is a need to minimise waste incineration, but it is still a better option than throwing rubbish into landfill. Energy-from-waste facilities provide around 3% of the UK’s total energy generation. They can support the decarbonisation of heating our homes and businesses, helping to cut customers’ bills. Energy from waste can both maximise the value of resources that have reached the true end of life and avoid the greater environmental impact of landfill, which creates its own problems.

I will conclude to give my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South time to respond. I encourage investors, financiers and businesses to invest in infrastructure that supports the movement of resources up the waste hierarchy. Our recycling infrastructure capacity analysis, published in partnership with the Waste and Resources Action Programme, alongside our packaging reforms identified forecast capacity investment opportunities of 1.7 million tonnes a year for paper packaging reprocessing and 324,000 tonnes a year for plastic packaging reprocessing by 2035.

We want to unlock investment, and last week my officials met the Lord Mayor of London, Dutch officials and members of the UK and Dutch financial sectors to agree to form a circular economy finance coalition to boost investment in the transition to the circular economy to which we are committed. That is no small task, but by working together we will keep our resources in use for longer.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Baggy Shanker, you have one minute to wind up.

Fly-tipping: Tatton

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under you chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on securing today’s debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his intervention.

Fly-tipping is not just a load of rubbish; it is a serious environmental crime. As the right hon. Lady set out, it blights communities and the environment and harms wildlife, and it can lead to people not feeling safe where they live. We appreciate the difficulty that it poses for councils, farmers, landowners and private businesses, such as the Sainsbury’s whose car park she discussed in her speech. Local councils reported over a million fly-tipping incidents in 2023-24, which represents a significant cost burden to the economy. Over the last five years, these incidents have increased by 20%, so something is going wrong.

That is completely unacceptable, and this Government are serious about taking back control of our streets and our countryside. We have committed to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess they have created, as part of a crackdown on antisocial behaviour, and I look forward to providing further details on that commitment in due course. I take on board the point the right hon. Lady raised about the previous Government looking at putting points on driving licences, and I will find out where the DEFRA machine got to on that.

We recognise the role that councils have in tackling fly-tipping, which can happen for a variety of reasons. That can include people trying to do the right thing with their waste and inadvertently handing it over to hardened criminals seeking to make money from the co-ordinated dumping of large amounts of waste. The response has to be appropriate to the circumstances, but we want to see an effective enforcement strategy at the heart of local authority efforts to combat fly-tipping.

I encourage all councils to make good use of their powers, which include prosecution. As the right hon. Lady said, prosecution can lead to significant fines, a community sentence and even imprisonment and compensation for landowners’ clearance costs—those can also be secured through the courts. Although sentencing is a matter for the courts, the national fly-tipping prevention group, chaired by DEFRA officials, has previously produced guidance to support councils to present robust cases in court. Cheshire East is not currently a member of that group, and I encourage it and any other councils that wish to join to crowd in any good work that they might be doing.

Instead of prosecuting, local authorities can issue fixed penalty notices of up to £1,000, or £600 for those who pass their household waste to someone without the proper licence. They also have powers to stop, search and seize the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers. To help councils make full and proper use of their enforcement powers, we are seeking powers through the Crime and Policing Bill to provide statutory enforcement guidance that councils will need to have regard to. So it is a much more directional approach.

We need to get a grip on this issue because, as the right hon. Lady said, it affects both rural and inner-city areas. In rural areas, over 80% of farmers say they have been affected by fly-tipping on their land. We continue to work with the National Farmers Union and others through our fly-tipping prevention group to promote and disseminate good practice on how to prevent fly-tipping on private land.

I visited Watery Lane in Lichfield, where an entire van load was emptied one night, exactly as the right hon. Lady described. Those responsible knew that the other part of the road was closed, that there would be no passers-by and that there was no CCTV, so they just dumped the waste in the middle of the road, trapping people in their houses for a couple of days until that waste was shifted. I met the people affected and heard their anxiety about what they would do in a medical emergency and about how their kids would get to school. It is absolutely dreadful. I was curious about the fact that this was seen not as a nationally significant incident but as a local authority incident. That has provoked a series of questions in my mind about what qualifies as a significant incident.

We had a very good debate on fly-tipping last week at DEFRA oral questions—I am sorry the right hon. Lady was not able to join us for that. We heard about a series of excellent pieces of work being done by Luton council, which has had 32 prosecutions, and by Wolverhampton council, which uses store cards. In that case, if someone spots a fly-tipper, or they know somebody is doing something, and they report it to the council, they are rewarded with what is essentially a gift voucher. So there is some quite innovative work is going on.

Stoke-on-Trent council—a newly elected Labour council—has put this issue right at the top of its agenda. Having had 5,000 fly-tipping incidents, it has issued 4,800 enforcement notices and 1,974 fixed penalty notices, and there have been nine prosecutions. It is a kind of zero-tolerance approach. That does not necessarily mean that the issue goes away—often it goes somewhere else—but that approach in Stoke-on-Trent is delivering some really interesting wins. Another council is using drones as well; if someone thinks they are being watched, the disincentive is massive. So there is lots of innovation is going on, and nobody has a monopoly on wisdom when it comes to this issue.

The public also have a role to play, because approximately 60% of fly-tips involve household waste. We know where it happens—along the flank walls at the ends of terraces. I was out canvassing in Foleshill, and somebody was literally just about to do some fly-tipping in broad daylight in the middle of Coventry. The householder I was talking to spotted it and came out, and the guy got back in his van. Householders should check the register of waste carriers to avoid giving their waste to environmental criminals who promise quick, cheap waste collection but then dump the waste in our communities.

I would just say that Cheshire East’s 2022-23 recycling statistics place it in the top 25% of local authorities—it is at 52%. Fresh statistics will be published tomorrow, but it is in the top quartile of local authorities when it comes to people’s recycling rates, so it is clear that the local community really wants to do the right thing.

The right hon. Lady talked about waste carriers, which is a massive weakness. The Conservative Government left us with a system that is frankly not fit for purpose—it is essentially paper-based—so I have asked officials to look at how we can strengthen the current waste carriers, brokers and dealers regulatory regime to crack down on waste criminals. I will hopefully be saying something about that shortly—not today, but very soon.

The right hon. Lady raised the issue of householders getting rid of their rubbish. I do not really like the word “rubbish”; the word should be “materials”, because everything has a purpose. If we can repair it, reuse it or pass it on to friends and family, that is much better than simply giving it to the tip and saying, “Over to you—work out which waste stream it goes into.” DEFRA recently published guidance to ensure that local authorities consider certain factors when they review the frequency of residual waste collections, to ensure that reasonable standards are maintained. Part of that is to ensure that there is no increase in fly-tipping, so we expect local authorities to monitor any changes to collection frequencies to ensure that there are no adverse consequences. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Lady that that will be being done.

We recognise the importance of household waste recycling centres. It is down to individual local authorities to handle the operation and management of those in their areas. Previous research found that a link between fly-tipping and booking systems could not be ruled out. However, based on recent data, there appears to be no indication that such a link exists. There are some really interesting behaviour changes going on. Perhaps in the past, if people had to book, that made life more difficult. Perhaps, as we all get a bit more digitally savvy, people are getting used to the new way of doing things. There is conflicting research, but we will keep an eye on what we are hearing and whatever research we have on the ground. It is down to councils to decide whether they will continue to charge for collection of garden waste.

We need to work together to tackle this issue. Keep Britain Tidy’s Great British Spring Clean campaign is under way, and I am sure all Members will be out, as I will be, at a litter-pick. I will be cleaning up in Camden next week, and I will be out in Coventry this weekend, tackling waste one bin bag at a time.

We are also working with the national fly-tipping prevention group, which includes councils, the Environment Agency and police, to look at innovative ways of tackling fly-tipping. For Coventry, we have a Facebook wall of shame, which shows footage from CCTV that has been installed—I can see the hon. Member for Strangford thinking about how this can be used. It basically says, “Does anyone know these criminals? Pass the information on.”

Of course, reducing waste in the first place should mean that there is less of it to be dumped unlawfully. We have our circular economy taskforce of experts from industry, academia, civil society and beyond to help us develop a circular economy strategy for England. We are going to have a series of road maps for the interventions that the Government and others will make to support economic growth as part of our plan for change and to tackle the threats to our environment and circularity, such as those we see with fly-tipping.

The right hon. Lady is right to say that serious organised crime groups are involved. They are taking money at the top end and charging full price, but then doing something different and pocketing the fees. There is an awful lot of organised crime going on, and I am having weekly updates from the Environment Agency about enforcement and what steps we are taking to tackle that serious organised crime. We know that what gets tipped is often landfilled rather than recycled, remanufactured or repurposed.

Wherever people live, whether in a city, a town, a village or the country, they should be able to walk through their area without seeing litter. That includes Parliament; the other day I saw a Costa Coffee cup dumped by one of our Carriage Gates, which deeply annoyed me. People should be able to feel proud of their environment. That is why we are committed to stamping out antisocial behaviour such as fly-tipping from our streets and countryside.

It is time to dump the excuses. Working with councils, regulators and others, we will force the offenders to clean up their mess, we will tighten our systems to put a stop to the waste criminals and, together, we will keep our communities clean.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

16. What steps he is taking to tackle fly-tipping.

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

Happy spring equinox and happy World Sparrow Day to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone in the House.

Fly-tipping blights communities, harms the environment and places huge costs on taxpayers and businesses. Councils dealt with over 1 million incidents in 2023-24, some 6% more than in the previous year. This Government will crack down on fly-tipping by establishing clean-up squads comprised of those very individuals who dump rubbish in our communities. We are also tackling litter by introducing a ban on single-use vapes from 1 June this year and a deposit return scheme for drinks containers.

[Paul Waugh]

Rochdale council has removed 6,500 fly- tips this past year alone, the equivalent of 50 tonnes of illegally dumped waste every month, at a cost of £400,000 to local taxpayers. But my council tells me that there is a real failure in the courts issuing consistent and tough enough fines. Does the Minister agree with me that it is time to crack down harder on fly-tippers, put much tighter regulations on waste carriers and treat the fly-tippers like the criminals they are, by crushing their cars and putting points on their licences?

[Mary Creagh]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I hear enthusiasm for his comments from both sides of the House. Rochdale council has an exemplary record on fly-tipping, with 26 fixed-penalty notices and 12 prosecutions, which is admirable. Last week, the Environment Agency worked with the north-west regional organised crime unit to arrest two men in Manchester for fraud and money laundering, following an extensive investigation into packaging export notes used by law-abiding firms to export waste that were unlawfully sold for £747,000. Our message to the waste criminals is clear: we are seeking powers in the Crime and Policing Bill, and we are going to track them down.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Fly-tipping is a scourge on local communities and a drain on council resources, be they rural councils, like Central Bedfordshire, or town councils, like Luton, in my constituency. Most recent figures show that there were over 10,000 fly-tipping incidents in Luton alone in 2023-24, but does the Minister agree that we need a co-ordinated approach between the Department, local authorities and the police to deliver a holistic strategy to tackle fly-tipping?

[Mary Creagh]

It is clear that my hon. Friend is right. Luton has a particular problem with fly-tipping, but the council has been doing good work, with 263 fixed-penalty notices and 32 prosecutions. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chairs the national fly-tipping prevention group, and we work with a wide range of interested parties, including councils, the Environment Agency, the National Farmers Union and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to disseminate good practice, and I urge Luton to join us in that endeavour.

[Warinder Juss]

Although City of Wolverhampton council is to be congratulated on introducing a range of initiatives to tackle fly-tipping, including deploying drones, raising the fine for fly-tipping to £1,000 and rewarding those who identify culprits with gift cards, fly-tipping in my constituency of Wolverhampton West costs Wolverhampton taxpayers around £300,000 a year and involved some 2,714 incidents during 2023-24. Does the Minister agree that we need stronger disincentives to discourage those who fly-tip, so that that £300,000 can be redistributed to where it is really needed?

[Mary Creagh]

I am interested to hear about the work my hon. Friend’s council is doing with drones. We use CCTV, but there could be lessons for other councils. In our manifesto, we committed to forcing fly-tippers to clean up their mess. We are seeking powers to issue statutory fly-tipping enforcement guidance so we have a consistent and effective approach, but it is clear that the waste carriers, brokers and dealers, and the exemption permitting regimes, are not fit for purpose. I have asked my officials to look at everything we can do to strengthen both of those.

[David Williams]

Fly-tipping is a blight on our communities, but in Stoke-on-Trent, our Labour-led council has worked tirelessly to turn things around. Under the Conservatives, residents were waiting for over a month for waste to be removed, but under the leadership of Jane Ashworth and Amjid Wazir, that response time is now under one week. However, councils cannot tackle the issue alone, so will the Minister outline what more the Government can do to support local councils to clamp down on fly-tipping, get tough on those who blight our streets, and create cleaner, greener communities for all?

[Mary Creagh]

It is interesting what a difference a change in council leadership makes. I commend Councillor Ashworth and Councillor Wazir on their excellent work. This Government will introduce mandatory digital waste tracking from April 2026, and I will update the House on progress in May 2025. If people want their streets to be cleaned up, the answer is clear: vote Labour.

[Mr Forster]

Fly-tipping is a real concern in my constituency of Woking, but I understand that the previous Government introduced new powers that enabled Woking borough council and other local authorities to strengthen their actions against people who fly-tip. What impact have those measures had?

[Mary Creagh]

We have not assessed the impact, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman the latest statistics for his own council. There were more than 1,100 fly-tipping incidents, but just three fixed-penalty notices and no prosecutions. Local councillors are clearly making choices. We know that the latest statistics for fly-tipping show a rise of 6%, so it is clear that under the previous Government, this environmental crime was allowed to spiral out of control. I encourage all councils—of whatever colour—to make good use of their enforcement powers.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Alas, the last Government did not take up my suggestion that the offenders be garrotted with their own intestines. The first problem, however, is to catch them. Is there any way that local authorities can be encouraged to take advantage of the collapse in price and improvement in quality of internet-connected cameras?

[Mary Creagh]

I think there would be some human rights implications with the garrotting option, but I share the right hon. Gentleman’s passionate hatred for these environmental criminals. He is a representative of the beautiful New Forest, where I have spent many happy holidays, and it really upsets me to see fly-tipping on ancient woodland run by the Forestry Commission. These are precious and irreplaceable areas. We have not looked at that part of his suggestion, but I am very happy to join forces with him and make it a cross-party mission that we sort the messes out once and for all.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Conservative-run East Sussex county council has introduced a booking system for the local tip in Eastbourne that will make it even more difficult for many people to get rid of their waste. Many local campaigners are concerned that it will result in increased fly-tipping, specifically in areas such as Upperton in my constituency, and we have already seen it in Hartfield Square and Upperton Gardens. How might the Minister be able to influence East Sussex county council to U-turn on its unpopular decision and to keep our community clean and free from fly-tipping?

[Mary Creagh]

All councils have been given an uplift under this Labour Government, so they have more money to be able to deal with the priorities of their local communities, and I encourage them to think about where that money is spent. There is also a really important equality issue here: if people do not have access to the internet in East Sussex, due to blackspots, they might not be able to digitally book in, so I would look at digital exclusion. The people who are least able to afford the internet should not be forced into dealing with unscrupulous rogues.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

We know that fly-tipping is an expensive and dangerous nuisance. Local authorities such as Conservative-led Walsall council are taking a really proactive and determined approach to tackling it, but with bin strikes on our doorstep under the neighbouring Labour-led Birmingham city council, we fear more fly-tipping, particularly in the communities that border Birmingham. Alarmingly, we are hearing of rats the size of cats in Britain’s second city, and these squeaky blinders are definitely not welcome in Aldridge-Brownhills. What specific support can the Minister provide to neighbouring authorities in these specific circumstances, and what can she do to bring the bin strikes to an end?

[Mary Creagh]

Obviously Birmingham city council’s bin situation is a matter for the council, but, as a neighbouring MP in Coventry, we have not seen any of the fly-tipping that the right hon. Lady talks about seeing in Walsall. Both sides need to get round the table and sort this out for the benefit of the people of Birmingham.

[Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with Ofwat on encouraging water companies to increase investment in sewage discharge reduction measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

8. If he will take steps to implement the provisions of the Environment Act 2021 on deforestation due diligence.

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

The biggest driver of deforestation worldwide is agricultural expansion, particularly the production of a small number of commodities such as soy and palm oil. This Government are considering the approach to the deforestation regulations, and nothing has yet been ruled in or out.

[Anna Gelderd]

I thank the Minister for her answer. Tomorrow is the International Day of Forests. The Environment Act 2021 was passed over three years ago, with strong public and cross-party support, yet the due diligence provisions to prevent the import of commodities linked to illegal deforestation remain unimplemented, causing uncertainty for UK business. Will the Minister provide a clear timeline for when the secondary legislation will come into force, and will she meet me, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on global deforestation, alongside other Members, to discuss how we can strengthen and accelerate its implementation?

[Mary Creagh]

The UK strongly supports global efforts to protect forests, and we are advocating for the international commitment to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030, while at the same time supporting forest dwellers and economic development. As I say, nothing has yet been ruled in or out, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking to encourage public bodies to prioritise the purchase of British produce.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

T5. After many years of rising costs for Scottish pubs, they now face being unfairly caught up in the double jeopardy of extended producer responsibility, as bottles going to pubs are being classed as household waste by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, even though almost no glass bottles delivered to pubs end up in household waste. Given the extremely tight margins on producing bottled beer, the situation threatens to cause serious harm to this part of the industry. Will the Minister consider an EPR exemption for pubs and other hospitality venues, or some kind of easement to help the situation?

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

We are introducing the biggest set of changes to the regulations in 20 years. We are looking at the issue of dual use, but the real prize with glass is, of course, to get to a reuse system, instead of a recycling system. I have been in touch with the drinks companies to look at how we speed up the start of that.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Labour-led Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council has bucked the national trend in fly-tipping with a reduction in the borough of more than 10%, while total reported incidents have fallen by 200 on the previous year. Meanwhile, neighbouring Conservative-led North Warwickshire borough council served only one fixed penalty notice in the year 2023-24. Does my hon. Friend agree that the actions taken by Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council demonstrate that councils can reduce fly-tipping incidents, and that North Warwickshire must do more to stop the scourge of fly-tipping on our country roads?

[Mary Creagh]

I have travelled along those country roads near Coventry many times. My hon. Friend is right: this is a political choice that councils can make. I urge people in the upcoming elections on 1 May to vote for more Labour county councillors, who will take this scourge seriously.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Last month, more than 4,000 litres of diesel spilled into the River Wandle from a Transport for London garage in the Secretary of State’s previous constituency. Will the Secretary of State meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) to discuss what can be done to restore the wildlife and to ensure that that cannot happen again?

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

For far too long, the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme have had to live with the consequences of Walley’s Quarry landfill site. With the operator, Walley’s Quarry Ltd, now in liquidation, may I urge the Minister to do all she can to make sure that those who caused the mess are forced to pay to clean it up?

[Mary Creagh]

We are disappointed that Walley’s Quarry has entered administration. The Environment Agency has attended the landfill site, assessed it and decided that it does not pose an immediate risk, but, of course, we are liaising with specialist contractors to look after the site and we are in close contact with the Environment Agency to recoup those costs.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

May I first congratulate the new councillor, Ian Campbell, on his by-election win yesterday? The team got a great result in my part of the world.

Many in my constituency are concerned about the newly coined grey belt, which will be used as an excuse to destroy our land irreversibly. What calculations have the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues made about the impact on the environment of over-development on unspoiled green-belt land?

Outcomes from Resumed UN Biodiversity Summit COP16, Rome

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Written Statements

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

This Government are committed to ending poverty on a liveable planet. The climate and nature crises define our times and it is the most vulnerable who bear the brunt. Over half of global GDP is moderately or highly dependent on nature. Loss of biodiversity poses a serious risk to global food security by undermining the resilience of many agricultural systems to threats such as pests, pathogens and climate change.

COP16 resumed in Rome to conclude the work that began in Cali, Colombia last year. It ended with the successful adoption of all major outstanding items. The UK welcomes the positive conclusion to the negotiations, which demonstrates a continued commitment from the international community to work together to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030. The agreement on resource mobilisation means that there is a clear strategy for global collaboration on raising finance from all sources to fund the work necessary to achieve the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework. By finalising the details of the monitoring framework and the global approach to reviewing progress in delivering the framework, we have ensured that there is a consistent and shared approach to tracking progress, which will be critical in understanding the impact of our interventions.

The UK also welcomes the formal launch of the Cali fund, following the successful conclusion of negotiations at COP16 to the convention on biological diversity. The launch of the fund means that it is now open to contributions from all sources, and all organisations looking to deliver tangible action around the world to support nature conservation and restoration. The Cali fund constitutes an important part of the global financial landscape for securing the funding necessary for achieving the ambitious target to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030. The deal reached at CBD COP16 means businesses have the option of voluntarily contributing to the Cali fund if they use genetic information from nature. The fund supports the conservation and sustainable use of nature, with a significant proportion flowing to indigenous peoples and local communities.

Finally, the UK was pleased to publish a full national biodiversity strategy and action plan that commits us to achieving all 23 targets of the global biodiversity framework. The four nations of the UK, the overseas territories, and the Crown dependencies have worked collaboratively to develop the NBSAP. We must now work to ensure that this global agreement is implemented. In England, work continues to revise the environmental improvement plan. The revised, statutory plan will set out further information and clarity on how we will meet targets and commitments in England as a core pillar of the NBSAP, as we develop and deliver this vital work together.

We are grateful to the Colombian presidency for its tireless efforts in reaching agreement in Rome. We are committed to working with international partners to continue building global nature ambition and delivering successful outcomes at both the UN framework convention on climate change COP30 in Brazil later this year and CBD COP17 in Armenia in 2026. We also look forward to hosting IPBES-12, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, in England early next year.

[HCWS497]

Species Reintroductions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Written Statements

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

Beavers were once widespread across England but became nationally extinct due to overhunting. In recent years they have returned to our waterways through a combination of licensed releases, escapes, unlawful wild releases and natural breeding.

Beavers can bring many benefits: boosting biodiversity, creating and restoring wetland habitats, and reducing downstream flooding. Their positive effect on water ecosystems can bring benefits for a variety of other organisms, supporting delivery of the Government’s statutory species abundance and extinction targets. River restoration and creation of wetlands by beavers can also potentially contribute towards delivery of the Government’s statutory target to restore or create wildlife-rich habitat outside of protected sites.

The Government are now setting out their approach to the wild release and management of beavers in England.

Licensing the wild release of beavers

The Government have asked Natural England to begin assessing licence applications to release beavers into the wild. Beavers released by these projects will be allowed to expand their range naturally, with management plans in place to promote their return to the landscape. On 10 February 2025 the National Trust received a licence to release beavers into the wild as part of their Purbeck beaver project in Dorset.

Beaver reintroductions must be carefully planned to avoid negative effects on farming, food production, and infrastructure. They can pose challenges to those responsible for land and infrastructure in some locations, especially if their activity is not effectively managed.

How the licensing scheme will work

A licence is needed to release any beavers into the wild. Applications will be considered against comprehensive wild release criteria. The criteria have been developed through extensive engagement with stakeholders.

Applicants will need to submit an expression of interest to Natural England who will assess the project. Only those likely to meet the criteria will be invited to make a full application.

The first expression of interest window will open from 1 March 2025 and will close on 2 May 2025. There will be more opportunities to submit expressions of interest on a regular basis. Full licence applications will need to:

demonstrate clear environmental benefits;

provide evidence of meaningful engagement with local landowners and managers;

explain how the risks of identified negative outcomes will be effectively avoided, mitigated or managed.

These criteria have been designed to ensure that only high-benefit, low-risk projects are licensed, and that beavers are reintroduced at a measured pace in a well-managed way.

Projects must help communities adapt to living with beavers. All new reintroduction projects that receive a licence must develop a project plan. This will usually need to cover at least a 10-year period to support the introduction of beavers into a landscape. The project plan must include an exit strategy for transition to longer-term beaver management to ensure that support to farmers, landowners and local communities continues after this initial period. Natural England must be consulted before a reintroduction project starts its exit strategy.

We will keep this approach under review. We will use what we learn to inform the long-term approach to beaver management in England, and where necessary to update our guidance.

Support for living alongside beavers

We recognise that some groups and individuals are concerned about the effects of beaver activity. Beavers can cause problems in some situations. However, with the right support and management in place, the overall benefits provided by wild beaver populations more than outweigh the risks.

We want to make sure that support is available to help beavers and people live alongside each other. Our five-step beaver management approach ensures effective management of beavers and supports people to live alongside them.

Environmental land management support and advice for land managers will be available through countryside stewardship higher tier and capital grants. In addition, some actions in the sustainable farming incentive have a role to play in riparian management.



If lower-level interventions without a licence are ineffective or not appropriate, licensed management of beavers may be considered, which can include removing or reducing the height of a dam. As a last resort, beavers may be trapped and translocated, or lethally controlled.

Managing existing wild beaver populations

Beavers are already present and breeding in the wild in several catchments in England. One population, on the River Otter in Devon, has already been allowed to remain and expand naturally following the licensed River Otter beaver trial.

We want to support the ongoing effective management of all existing populations. The Government will allow all existing beaver populations to remain and expand naturally, and will ensure that appropriate management measures are put in place. Existing wild populations will be proactively managed through their local beaver management group. Natural England will support these groups to develop their capabilities. This will include helping them to:

develop and implement beaver management and stakeholder engagement plans;

conduct risk and benefit analyses to an equivalent standard as new wild release applications.

We will not tolerate the continued unlawful release of beavers. It is an offence in England under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to release a beaver into an enclosure or the wild except under the authority of a licence from Natural England. Doing so without a licence carries a penalty of either an unlimited fine or up to six months in prison.

Developing a long-term management plan for beavers

Our management approach and the support available for people living alongside beavers will develop and adapt to ensure that we continue to meet the challenges posed by an expanding beaver population. Building on the approach that we have already developed for wild release and management, we will collaboratively develop a management plan for the long-term reintroduction and recovery of beaver populations in England. This will help us identify any changes we need to make to adapt to an increasing beaver population, before problems arise. In this way, we will continue to support farmers, landowners and local communities in the long term.

[HCWS484]