Local Authorities: Aluminium Recycling

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered aluminium recycling and local authorities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to have secured this debate, as I believe that what I am about to set out is one of the most significant and least understood failures in our country’s local authority waste and recycling policy. It concerns aluminium, the most valuable material in every household recycling bin in Britain.

We should ask ourselves, what happens to the aluminium cans that residents put out for the council to collect? What do councils do with that aluminium? Is it managed in the best possible way? And how does the disposal of aluminium impact the Government’s critical minerals strategy, aluminium recycling targets and circular economy objectives?

For many years, I have collected used aluminium from businesses in my constituency. Once I have collected enough, it goes to our local scrap merchant, and I donate the money to local charities. Recycled aluminium has roughly 10 times the value of mixed plastic waste and several times the value of paper or cardboard. As aluminium can be recycled indefinitely, it is the most valuable material that councils collect from households by a very wide margin.

I knew that a number of councils in my region, including my own council, had an efficient kerbside collection scheme and return much of the collected aluminium’s commodity value to the council’s coffers, but I wondered about the rest of the country. How much aluminium is recycled each year? What happens to it once councils have collected it? Are councils getting a fair income from its commodity value? Is it recycled in the UK or sent abroad? And what, if any, are the Government’s regulations regarding the export of aluminium? Those are some of the questions to which I wanted answers.

Earlier this year, I submitted a freedom of information request to more than 300 councils across the UK. I asked them what happens to the aluminium collected from their residents’ kerbside recycling. While I waited for replies, I did some further research on the subject. I discovered from the House of Commons Library that about £1 billion-worth of scrap aluminium is sold abroad each year by waste management companies. Industry groups told me that manufacturers are spending about £5 billion importing reprocessed aluminium.

According to the Aluminium Packaging Recycling Organisation, which I would like to thank for being here today, we use around 12 billion aluminium cans every year.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making an important point about the value of the aluminium we throw away. This is not just about drinks cans; blister packs also contain valuable aluminium but are not routinely recycled at the kerbside by many councils. My constituent, Yvonne, has done amazing work in one of our local villages trying to gather together these blister packs for recycling. Does the hon. Member agree that we should be speaking with councils and encouraging them to recycle things like blister packs at the kerbside?

[Tessa Munt]

Yes, of course I agree. The more we can do to recycle everything that we potentially throw away, the better.

Around 60% of the 12 billion aluminium cans used each year are exported for recycling, with only 40% recycled in the UK. I also learned that, although we currently have a high recycling capacity, next year we will have the capacity to recycle every aluminium can used in the UK. By this time next year, there should be no need whatsoever for any council in this country to send its aluminium cans abroad. I shall return to that point.

Environmental groups revealed that every tonne of aluminium recycled in the UK saves 95% of the energy needed to produce primary aluminium. Of equal importance, recycling in the UK avoids the carbon emissions of shipping material to smelters in China, India, the USA, Thailand and Greece. I mention those countries because, according to the manufacturers’ trade body, Make UK, and aluminium industry analysts AL Circle, that is where 84% of our aluminium scrap ends up. Exports of aluminium to the USA are particularly worrying, because they have surged by almost 1,200% from 2,000 tonnes to 24,000 tonnes in just 12 months. Aluminium scrap is exempt from President Trump’s tariffs on primary aluminium, so the waste management companies are profiteering by sending as much scrap aluminium there as they can.

In April, answers to my FOI requests began to arrive. The results were revealing. Far too many councils could not say where their aluminium ended up. Too many have no policy requiring their aluminium to be recycled in the UK and, I have since discovered, too many councils that do have a UK recycling requirement are blissfully unaware that their aluminium is being exported abroad by private waste management companies. The most shocking thing my research revealed, however, was the number of councils that do not know the value of their aluminium waste and the number receiving little or no income from the sale of this valuable commodity. Equally alarming was the number of council leaders who refused to answer my question about income, quoting commercial sensitivity.

I found that those councils that understand the value of their aluminium and manage their recycling well are retaining significant amounts of money each year. However, councils of similar sizes and demographics, sometimes using the very same waste management company, are losing money for reasons that simply make no commercial sense. I will give a few examples: Cambridgeshire county council made about £1.6 million from aluminium recycling last year; West Sussex county council made about £1 million; Surrey county council made £2,000; Warwickshire county council made £500; and Lancashire and Kent county councils made nothing.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

As a Kent MP, I am consistently amazed at how rubbish the Reform leadership of Kent county council is, but of particular note is the fact that when Reform came in, Kent was going to be the flagship for its DOGE, which is about saving loads of money. Does my hon. Friend know whether the council got on to that and renegotiated the contract? Are there any other options? Did it look into this? Can she tell me more about her interactions with Kent county council?

[Tessa Munt]

No, Kent county council has probably done absolutely nothing. In a moment, I will give my hon. Friend an example of where a council has changed hands—control changed hands and the council did a really brilliant job. There is money to be had and, when councils are up against it trying to provide for adult social care, children’s social care and, frankly, every flipping pothole, it is amazing that they do not get on and tune into this.

County councils are not alone in that income discrepancy. It happens in unitary authorities, too: South Gloucestershire council made £500,000 and one of my own councils, North Somerset, made £400,000, but North Lincolnshire made absolutely nothing. Doncaster city council made £300,000, but Coventry city council and Leicester city council made nothing. Another interesting example is that the Labour-led Nottingham city council made an impressive £300,000 from the sale of its aluminium, but the Reform-led Nottinghamshire county council, which serves three times the population of the city itself, made absolutely nothing. Something went awry there.

According to the Local Government Association, aluminium cans are worth some £54 million per year to English councils. If the responses I have received to my FOI questions are anything to go by, that seems to be a sizeable underestimate. I therefore want to return to this question of commercial sensitivity. I understand that contracts between councils and waste management companies can contain some commercially sensitive terms and information; however, surely how much income a council earns from the sale of recyclable materials collected from its residents is a matter of public interest and should not be hidden behind exemptions. Residents who sort their recycling every week are entitled to know where it is going, if for no other reason than it encourages them to keep recycling and to recycle more. Secrecy does not help anyone in this arena. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 rightly provides exemptions for genuinely commercially sensitive information, but I trust that the Minister will agree that income from aluminium recycling is hardly a trade secret. It should be a matter of public record.

Both councils in the Minister’s constituency replied to my freedom of information requests by stating that they could not identify income from aluminium. However, Hull city council informed its own scrutiny committee that aluminium cans are worth £900 to £1,000 a tonne and that it takes 80% of that value, and East Riding of Yorkshire council told its committee that revenue was £1.6 million. Does the Minister accept that councils that publish this information for a council committee meeting should be more transparent with their residents and the public? Can she assure me that she will offer guidance to ensure that councils always release such information? The Local Government Association’s “wealth from waste” review says that councils across the country receive only around 28% of the total financial value of the materials that they recycle. Waste management companies retain the remaining 72%. That disparity cannot be right.

Some councils have refused to accept that financial imbalance and have resorted to going to the courts to receive a fair income for their waste materials, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) referred to in relation to Kent. To give an example, in June 2024, Buckinghamshire council took its waste management company, FCC Environment, to the High Court. The council claimed that the 75%/25% revenue share in favour of the waste management company did not reflect the council’s entitlement. The High Court agreed, and the council was awarded substantial funds for underpayments going back as far as 2016. As the Minister knows, FCC Environment now controls waste management for the councils in her constituency, both of which have extended their contract to 2030.

South Ribble borough council is a clear example of action being taken after political change, as was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells. When Labour took control of South Ribble, the new administration immediately terminated the contract with the waste management company, brought services in-house and saved £178,000 in the first year. Where there is political will, injustices can be corrected. When local government finances are so tight, I find it puzzling that so many councils let this source of extra income slip through their fingers. I wonder how much children’s and adults’ care could be delivered and, as I said earlier, how many potholes could be filled with the extra income highlighted in those examples.

The issue is becoming increasingly important to our councils because aluminium is fast replacing plastic and glass across a wide range of drinks and consumer goods. Industries are turning to aluminium more and more. It is lightweight, substantially more recyclable and its quality is not time-sensitive, unlike that of plastic and glass. Many brands also see it as increasing their sustainability credentials, especially among younger consumers. In the last few years, the use of aluminium cans has expanded from a few soft drinks and craft beers into spirits, wine, coffee and water. Last year, Diageo sold more than 80 million cans of Baileys alone, and Marks and Spencer sold 35 million aluminium cans containing a variety of drinks—an increase of about 1 million on the number sold in the two previous years. Even the whisky industry is looking to aluminium to replace its traditional glass, although I am not sure what some hon. Members will think of that.

I am sure that the Minister sees my point. Year on year, right across the country, our councils’ residents are purchasing increasing numbers of aluminium cans, our councils are collecting an increasing number for recycling and, at the moment, waste management companies are allowed to sell increasing quantities of that precious resource abroad to the highest bidder.

I anticipate that when she replies the Minister will offer the packaging recovery notes system and the coming deposit return scheme as possible solutions. I plan to seek debates on both topics later in the year, and my research tells me that the packaging recovery note system has been plagued by fraudulent scams that open the doors to even more aluminium exports. The Minister will know that the Local Government Association claims that the system does not channel revenue to councils and has called for changes. As for the deposit return scheme, despite the benefits that it may bring the Government are allowing the drinks companies and the supermarkets to manage it, with no regulations whatsoever to restrict them from exporting as many aluminium cans as they want.

When my constituents put their cans in their recycling bag or bin they consider that recycling, and in one sense they are correct. It has become very clear from my research that when councils hand over their waste to a private material recovery facility most consider that to be recycling, but that is not the case. All a recovery facility does is divide the waste into different components. Consequently, when the aluminium comes out of such private facilities it has not been recycled; it is nothing more than crushed and broken bits of aluminium. I raise that point because the definition of “recycling” is important. The current confusing definition allows councils to be persuaded, whether honestly or otherwise, that their aluminium is recycled, and recycled in the UK, when too often, after it leaves the recovery facility, waste management companies sell it to the highest bidder abroad.

It is important that the Minister and her Government establish some clarity on this issue, so I would like to know the Government’s definition of recycling and its main characteristics, and at what point in the process the Government consider items such as aluminium to be actually recycled. To try to answer those questions for myself I took some of my aluminium to the largest aluminium can recycling centre in the UK: the Novelis reprocessing plant in Warrington. I thank the amazing Allan Sweeney and his team at Novelis for showing me around the plant. I saw how crushed and broken aluminium cans are cleaned, melted down and cast into brand-new 27-tonne ingots—they are huge.

I also saw the almost-completed £75 million expansion of Novelis’s facilities, which is jointly funded by the Government. Once operational it will allow all the UK’s used cans to be recycled in the UK. Each year in Warrington 8 billion cans are reprocessed, ready to be rolled into new aluminium cans and bottles. For me the question was answered right there in Warrington: aluminium is not recycled until it is reprocessed ready to be made into a new product; up to that point it is just scrap metal. That definition would resonate with my constituents and with all those who take the time to recycle their aluminium.

I will return to how that all impacts the Government’s critical minerals strategy and their circular economy objectives. I believe that there is no question but that it does impact them, and in a manner that makes a mockery of the Government’s intentions. I will give the Minister three very clear examples.

First, the critical minerals strategy categorises aluminium as a national strategic asset, central to our defence, infrastructure, manufacturing base, circular economy and net-zero targets. It says that the UK must secure access to such critical minerals; the amount of scrap aluminium exported abroad each year seriously undermines that.

Secondly, one of the critical minerals strategy’s primary pillars is reducing exposure to volatile global markets, yet waste management companies are given free rein by the Government to export unlimited quantities of aluminium scrap into the very volatile markets that the critical minerals strategy says must be avoided.

Thirdly, circularity is central to the critical minerals strategy. As I have already pointed out, aluminium is infinitely recyclable and reprocessing uses 95% less energy than primary production. Exporting scrap aluminium breaks the circular loop that the critical minerals strategy says is essential for resilience.

All the research that my team and I have conducted so far this year has led me to conclude that many of our councils have a good understanding of the commodity value of the aluminium that they collect from the public. They manage it well through prudent procurement agreements and secure real value for money for their residents, but far too many fail to take the management of their waste seriously. They sign contracts that simply hand everything over to waste management companies, which then profit massively from aluminium and other materials’ value. Far too many believe that UK recycling policies are being adhered to, when in reality, the truth is shrouded from them and their aluminium is being sold abroad to the highest bidder, lining the pockets of the waste management companies.

I am well aware that the responsibility for this issue lies not with central Government but with the leadership at local government level. Might the Prime Minister’s devolution initiative help here? I urge the Minister and her Government to act now to stop scrap aluminium from councils all over the UK being exported by waste management companies. What those companies are doing undermines all the Government’s initiatives around the critical minerals strategy and circular economy initiatives.

Aluminium, that vital commodity to our country, should not be sent for recycling or reprocessing abroad while there is capacity to do so here in the UK. In conclusion, I ask the Minister to give me some reassurance that the Government will act on this matter before our national interests are further harmed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I welcome all hon. Members back to Westminster Hall; it is good to start with a debate where there is much agreement.

I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing the debate, and I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the previous Minister for Nature at the Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh). She did so much to progress the reforms I will go on to mention, including the deposit return scheme, which is of clear relevance to today’s debate—it will play a vital role in increasing the capture of drinks containers, improve the quality of material collected for recycling, and reduce litter. I am a huge supporter of the deposit return scheme, and I will continue that work and her legacy.

I recognise the long-standing interest of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills in this issue. I was reading about how she has been collecting aluminium cans herself and using that for local charity, which is a brilliant idea and such a nice way to reduce litter in the local area and raise money for charity. We should think about the principle of such materials being viewed as valuable resources; I wholeheartedly agree with that.

I also agree with the comments the hon. Lady made about fraud in the system. She will be aware that, only a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister made a big announcement about cracking down more on waste crime. I went to visit Kidlington, which looks a heck of a lot better than it did previously and is nicely cleared up. The hon. Lady is therefore right to talk about fraud and how we can increase transparency in the system by looking at registration. There was a consultation on reforming the packaging waste recycling note system earlier in the year, which is looking at changes to address the issues she mentions.

It seems to me that there are two issues when it comes to recycling. One is how we collect more of the things we should recycle, rather than putting them into landfill. The other, which I am particularly passionate about, is how we recycle more of those things here in the United Kingdom. We still have a throwaway culture in the UK, and we throw away so much stuff that can be reused and recycled. As has been highlighted, we should think about the huge value of what we put into our bins and send to our councils. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) mentioned the problems he has with his council not recognising the value of what it is throwing away. There are many reforms that we can make in government, but there is not much we can do about incompetence.

Our recycling rate has stalled between 42% and 44% for years, apart from in Hull city council, where we recycle 51% of everything we collect. Considering the area, the demographic and the challenges we have—I could spend the whole debate talking about flats and recycling, but I will not—that is hugely important. I completely agree with the comments from hon. Members that every tonne of aluminium we do not recycle needs to be dug out of the ground somewhere and sent across the world somehow. It makes complete and utter sense to recycle more of what we have here in the UK. It is good not only for the environment but for industry; it is good for the Prime Minister’s ambition to reindustrialise our country, create jobs in different areas, bring back manufacturing and expand our manufacturing base. What is not to love about doing all those things? It is why I am quite passionate about this and so delighted to have it within my brief.

The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills asked about councils losing out through aluminium recycling. As she knows from all her in-depth research, they have different contracts and agreements. I can raise her point directly with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister to see what more can be done on transparency. From DEFRA’s point of view, we publish a monthly market overview so that councils can see what the market price of aluminium is, which is information that DEFRA has. I will have to speak to the MHCLG Minister about how they can encourage councils to share their information. From my point of view, they would surely want to do so to ensure that a neighbouring council is not getting a better deal.

[Tessa Munt]

Half the problem is that councils often think they are doing the right thing, and they have put something in their contract that says everything needs to be recycled in the UK. It goes back to my point of how to define recycling. There are problems all the way along the chain. If a waste management company can say, “Yes, we have recycled everything,” because it has put everything into a facility, separated it and sorted it, and the council is happy to accept that, then something has to change.

[Emma Hardy]

Absolutely. We need to keep building on the reforms we have introduced and make things simpler and more transparent for everyone. I completely take the point that local people need faith. If someone is living near an aluminium recycling factory, they will be really incentivised to recycle all their aluminium. I will raise the point with the MHCLG Minister about how we can encourage councils to be more transparent.

Before I move on to the next point, I want to address the points from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who raises a serious issue. It is great that recycling rates in his area are at 50%, which is really impressive, but I recognise the point he makes about how easily aluminium can be recycled and, if that material is collected, how quickly it can be recycled. DEFRA officials will meet and work with officials in Northern Ireland on the implementation of the deposit return scheme and see how we can support them to be as successful, if not more successful, than here on the mainland.

Lots of Members raised concerns about exports and what we are doing about them. Legitimate exports of waste for recovery are permitted when they comply with domestic and international controls. Reprocessors and exporters must be accredited by the relevant regulator. Hon. Members have heard me mention the packaging waste recovery note reforms as well. Where the UK cannot recycle materials economically, exports help those materials to be recycled rather than sent to landfill or incineration, which is the worst of all worlds. The new fit and proper person test for operators, together with monthly reporting requirements, further strengthens oversight of that part of the market. However, I will say again that my personal feeling is that I would love to see more of it recycled here in the UK.

[Tessa Munt]

As I explained, one place I went to was Warrington. It is clear that next year that plant, Novelis, will be able to take all our cans, for example—we do not need to think about the other bits of aluminium that there are around the place. That is a Government-funded expansion, and it is brilliant. Can we not do something that stops this stuff going abroad on the basis that it is a critical mineral?

[Emma Hardy]

Absolutely. Our aim is for 65% of municipal waste to be recycled, and 67% of aluminium packaging. The hon. Lady mentions Novelis, which is the leading aluminium producer and recycler, and it has committed, as I think she was alluding to, £66.5 million to upgrading its aluminium recycling plant. One of the things we are hearing is that the changes we are making through the deposit return scheme—the higher-quality collection of aluminium because of the way the scheme works—mean that recyclers are looking to expand and do a lot more, which is fantastic because that is creating highly skilled jobs in those areas.

I have already mentioned some of the other reforms: extended producer responsibility, simpler recycling and the deposit return scheme. Industry estimates that those three different reforms will underpin £10 billion of investment in recycling, with new sorting and processing facilities, and will create 25,000 jobs. Those are jobs here in the UK—UK jobs for people in this area—creating and supporting growth in every postcode, which is exactly what the Prime Minister is talking about. That is really quite exciting, and it is because of those three reforms introduced by this Government.

Aluminium demonstrates exactly why the transition to a circular economy is not some academic theory, but something that matters to us all. Capturing that valuable resource gives us the opportunity to reduce waste, lower emissions and strengthen industrial supply chains. That is good for local authorities, manufacturers, economic growth and the reindustrialisation of this country. Bringing together stakeholders from the steel, aluminium and critical minerals sectors, the Government have created, under my predecessors, the metals circularity group to look at how we can create high-quality scrap, because that matters a lot as well.

I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. It is great to kick the year off with something that we all agree on and that we are all pushing in the same direction on: how can we recycle more here in the UK? Our existing circular industry already delivers tens of billions of pounds in economic value and hundreds of thousands of jobs, but I know there is more potential that we can unlock. If we get it right, we can build something durable: a circular economy that turns yesterday’s rubbish into tomorrow’s raw material and delivers growth, resilience and jobs in every corner of this country—in fact, “growth in every postcode”, to borrow a phrase from the new Prime Minister. That is the outcome I am focusing on delivering for every council and corner of this country.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the Minister for her summary and her wind-up speech. I will give her a copy of my questions —I think she may have them already—and ask her to consider writing to me with the detail, because this is so important and so good for the UK that we cannot miss the opportunity. I would be hugely in favour of us getting to the point—next year, the year after or any time in the future—where we are not sending our aluminium by any means whatsoever to places such as China and the US, because it is not good for the UK. We can do it here. We should keep it here and use it again here.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered aluminium recycling and local authorities.

Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 General Committees

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Sir John. The Liberal Democrats support the implementation of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement, and welcome the draft order, which enables the United Kingdom to meet its international obligations under the global oceans treaty. We have long campaigned for stronger protection of the marine environment and support international action to conserve biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, including the global goal of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.

We note that the statutory instrument introduces a number of licensing exemptions for activities that the Government consider to pose a low environmental risk. While we recognise the need for a proportionate and workable regulatory framework, it will be important that these exemptions are kept under review and do not undermine effective environmental oversight as activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction develops over time. While we support the implementation of this treaty and this statutory instrument, we remain clear that the Government must ensure the new licensing exemptions do not become loopholes and that regulators are properly resourced to enforce the agreement effectively.

Draft REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 General Committees

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats support the principle of reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and avoiding costly duplication for businesses in the UK REACH regime. We recognise the challenges that businesses face in complying with post-Brexit chemicals regulations, and we understand the need to develop a more proportionate and workable registration system.

The draft regulations will provide businesses with additional time to compile and submit complex chemical safety information while the Government develop their alternative transitional registration model. Given the significant costs and administrative burdens that the current system can impose on businesses, we support measures that avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining existing environmental and public health protections. We will therefore support the draft regulations, but we urge the Government to move more quickly to deliver their replacement registration model and provide long-term certainty for businesses, regulators and consumers.

[The Chair]

I do apologise; I was under the impression that the hon. Lady was speaking from the Back Bench, but I take it from her opening remark that she was speaking for the Liberal Democrats.

[Tessa Munt]

Indeed I was.

[The Chair]

Had I known, I would have done the hon. Lady the courtesy of calling her to speak as a Front Bencher.

Regulation of the Marmalade Market

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

At the end of October 2013, I led a debate on the regulation of jam, which caused a bit of a stir. It rightly warned of the end of the British breakfast as we know it. Thirteen years later, I have returned to discuss marmalade.

Last July, a lady called Vivien Lloyd, who inspired the debate about jam, returned to see me at one of my constituency surgeries—hopefully, she is in the Public Gallery this evening. She told me of her alarm about the arrangements being made for marmalade. This debate is particularly timely. Members may have seen that “Marmalade Madness!” was the headline of the Daily Express just a few days ago. I wondered whether it had earned a double-page spread. [Hon. Members: “Groan!”] Great, isn’t it?

I understand that “Paddington: The Musical” won seven Olivier awards this weekend—Paddington is the most well-known lover of marmalade in sandwiches and enjoys stratospheric popularity—but Members and the Minister will be delighted to know that I will not be breaking into song. I looked forward to welcoming interventions from hon. Members on the “Conserve-ative” Benches, but they are not here. What a disappointment! Anyway, that pun does not work very well, not just because it is a particularly corny pun, but because marmalade is in fact a preserve rather than a conserve. That is exactly the issue I wish to speak about: the enormous inaccuracy in the classification of jams, spreads and, importantly, marmalade.

Stories explaining the origins of marmalade are full of inaccuracies. One account says that Mary, Queen of Scots, was ill and requested a remedy made of oranges and sugar. Her maid supposedly whispered, “Ma’am est malade”, leading to the name of the preserve. Another story credits marmalade to Dundee, where a ship full of oranges is supposed to have sunk in the port. Resourceful Dundonians supposedly devised a way of preserving the cargo to make it last. Unfortunately, both stories are untrue. Quince jams existed throughout Europe much earlier than the dates of those stories. The French and Portuguese took their word for quince jelly from the Greek “melimēlon”, meaning sweet apple.

It seems that that lack of care for heritage can still be seen in the approach that we take to regulating our marmalade market today. As a consequence, preservers and food retailers are selling marmalades that do not comply with regulations on total sugar and fruit content, as specified in the Jam and Similar Products (England) Regulations 2003. Marmalade should be 60% sugar. There are rules for the percentage of a product’s total sugar content, and for marmalade it is 60% or more. The sugar content for reduced-sugar marmalade is anything from 25% to 50%. Statisticians and mathematicians among us will have noticed that that leaves products with a total sugar content of 50% to 59% completely uncategorised, and that loophole has been exploited by many marmalade manufacturers. However, recent regulatory changes shift the nature of the problem, and the Breakfast Foods (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 will come into effect in the next few months and make some welcome changes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate, and I spoke to her this morning to ascertain her thoughts on this matter. We were brought up on marmalade back in Ballywalter. My mum made marmalade. She is now 94 and not making marmalade any more, but although I am no Paddington Bear, I love nothing more than a good round of marmalade and toast. When I say that I enjoy it, I mean marmalade and not citrus jam. Does the hon. Lady agree that my constituents in Strangford and across Northern Ireland, with EU labelling interfering with our produce, deserve the same consideration as her constituents, and that labelling must reflect the hard-won distinction of marmalade, and not fruit jam or jam, just for the ease of the EU?

[Tessa Munt]

I partially agree with the hon. Gentleman, although if we were part of the EU, we might find ourselves in the position of being able to influence that a little more. He is right to recognise that our jams, spreads and marmalades have a distinctive characteristic. Indeed, they are one of our largest exports to countries such as Japan and Australia, because of the quality of our jams and marmalades.

While the 60% requirement remains in law, the Breakfast Foods (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 removed the requirement to display total sugar content as a percentage on labels. Instead, producers will have to display

“energy value amounts of fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt.”

Unfortunately, that does nothing to encourage marmalade to be made with 60% sugar content, although I understand the driver behind the regulations.

This matters, because the rules governing marmalade are not arbitrary, but grounded in just over a century of scientific research and culinary practice. The requirement for 60% sugar content was not dreamed up by bureaucrats; it was developed through rigorous experimentation in the early 1920s at the University of Bristol’s Long Ashton research station. That facility is not in my patch, but I am proud to consider Bristol University one of my local universities. Long Ashton research station—now closed—is but 15 minutes’ drive from the boundary of my constituency, and I believe it is also famous for being where Ribena was developed.

The scientists were interested not merely in taste but in consistency, preservation and reliability. Before their work, recipes varied wildly, yields were unpredictable and the shelf life of marmalade was uncertain. They established a standard that ensured that marmalade would set properly, taste balanced and keep for extended periods. That west country connection is not incidental; it is foundational. The work carried out in Long Ashton helped to define what we now recognise as traditional British marmalade. It brought together food science and domestic practice, producing recipes that became a benchmark for generations of home cooks and commercial producers. To depart from those standards is not to innovate; it is to move away from a carefully developed and distinctly British product.

The 60% sugar threshold is critical. At that level, marmalade achieves the correct gelled consistency, a bright and appealing appearance, and a balanced flavour that is neither overly bitter nor cloyingly sweet. It also ensures a shelf life of up to a year when properly sealed. Drop below that threshold, and the product becomes fundamentally different: looser, duller, less stable and far more perishable. In my debate back in 2013, I described such products as “gloopy sludge”. I then had to apologise to the Americans and the French for describing their efforts as such, but I am not doing that this time, of course. These are not minor variations, but material differences that consumers have a right to understand.

Under the new labelling rules, that understanding becomes hard to access. While full nutritional information will still be provided, the removal of a clear, single sugar percentage risks obscuring whether a product meets the long-established British standards. An obvious response might be that the reduction in sugar is a good thing, as we are rightly encouraged to reduce our sugar intake. However, lower-sugar marmalades tend to be boiled for longer, which lowers the water content and ultimately results in a higher sugar content following the boiling process. The right response for those who wish to reduce their sugar intake is to moderate the amount of marmalade we put on our toast in the morning.

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

I confess to the House that I prefer English strawberry jam to marmalade, but my wife is an assiduous and loyal orange marmalade fan—

[Adam Jogee]

It must be a Northern Irish thing. She often purchases marmalade at one of the excellent shops in Newcastle-under-Lyme. May I congratulate the hon. Lady on an excellent and interesting speech, and on giving voice to the sweet, sweet tastes of Paddington Bear himself?

[Tessa Munt]

I am trying so hard to avoid more references to Paddington, but you are quite right.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I made the point earlier in the debate. We have had a scattering of “yous” from Ministers, Front Benchers and Back Benchers. Hon. Members have been in this place for long enough to know that they must not do it and it will not be tolerated by the Chair.

[Tessa Munt]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge the commitment shown by the wife of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) to marmalade. The critical thing is that it is made from citrus. I have been to Fortnum & Mason—I will probably have to apologise to them tomorrow morning—and seen strawberry marmalade, pear marmalade and all sorts of other flavours. That is rubbish—there is no such thing.

Some manufacturers use the weight of sugar in the recipe to calculate the percentage of sugar instead of testing the end product in the jar with a refractometer. To summarise, consumers are getting a lower-quality, higher-sugar product that can be made more cheaply than proper marmalade, but can be disguised as the same thing. To avoid that, I ask the Minister to ensure that marmalades have total sugar content of 60% or above, as measured with a refractometer. That way, we can protect the heritage of British marmalade.

Another concern in the marmalade market is the definition of marmalade itself. That is being flaunted in cases where producers are developing creative new preserves. Only these additional ingredients can be used in true marmalade: spirits, wine, liqueur wine, nuts, aromatic herbs, spices, vanilla, vanilla extracts and vanilline. Every year, Penrith holds the world marmalade awards. Recent winners include Nordic fusion blackcurrant and vodka marmalade, coffee heaven marmalade and yuzu, passionfruit and apricot marmalade—I had to check what the last one was, as I had no idea.

Without clear and enforced regulation, those differences are obscured. Products that fall short of the standards are still presented to consumers as marmalade, trading on the reputation of a product that they do not in truth match. That is not innovation; it is misrepresentation.

Recent regulatory changes attempt to address that by tightening definitions. Marmalade will quite rightly be more clearly defined as a citrus product, and combinations of citrus with non-citrus ingredients will no longer be permitted to use the term. That is a welcome step towards greater clarity for consumers and towards protecting the integrity of the product itself. The vast majority of marmalades are already labelled as Seville marmalade or orange marmalade, but this measure would ensure that that applies to all marmalades.

Predictably, colleagues in the Conservative party and the Reform party have leapt on the bandwagon and claimed that, due to heavy-handed EU regulation, we may no longer call marmalade marmalade. While that claim is overstated, it reflects a misunderstanding of what is actually changing. Indeed, it is reminiscent of the banana-straightening nonsense spouted in the lead-up to the EU referendum in 2016. We are not losing the word “marmalade” but refining it.

The changes ensure that what is called marmalade is, in fact, made from citrus fruit. In a post-2016 referendum context—a post-Brexit context—that takes on an added significance and irony. We were told by some that we would now have the opportunity to define, protect and champion our own food standards, rooted in our own scientific and culinary heritage. There is a real risk that by drifting towards looser definitions adopted elsewhere, we could lose just over a century of British tradition.

Accurate regulation is not about pedantry; it is about protecting consumers and quality and maintaining trust. It is about ensuring that when something is labelled as marmalade, it meets the standards that generations of Britons would expect. If we fail to uphold those standards, we risk not just eroding a definition, but failing to preserve a meaningful part of our national food heritage.

These are my requests of the Minister. First, it is still unclear what will happen to the 50% to 59% sugar marmalades. Maybe we should have three categories: reduced sugar marmalade, which is 25% to 49% sugar; preserve, which is not marmalade but has 50% to 59% sugar; and marmalade, which has 60% sugar and above. Secondly, legislation should require that sugar content be measured with a refractometer. Thirdly, I request that we have a defined list of permitted additional marmalade ingredients, as I have mentioned, and that that should be enforced.

Fourthly, we have removed the requirement to label the sugar content, with an understanding that that will be expressed in the nutritional values information. That is doubly problematic for marmalade, because it is often made by artisan producers, who sometimes do not label their nutritional values, and, as I discussed in my speech, the 60% sugar content is so critical to producing something that is actually marmalade. My penultimate point is that legislation should require that, at a minimum, the sugar content is made clear, either as part of the nutritional values or just by having the sugar content on a separate label.

Finally, the new rules require that marmalade be labelled “citric marmalade” or “Seville orange marmalade.” That is fine, but it leaves the door open to so-called strawberry marmalade or raspberry marmalade. Can we ensure that the new legislation permits that only citrus fruits can precede the word “marmalade” on labels?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the Minister enormously for her explanation, and I am pleased that there is no intention to damage our trade in any way. We should boost trade of this well-known product with its unique qualities. My constituent would be particularly concerned about the level of sugar. I know I have asked some detailed questions—I have a copy of those questions for her, so if I may, I will hand those to her after this debate—but I am also particularly concerned about the proportion of sugar and those old Bristolian standards that were set over 100 years ago. I think the Minister’s view is the same.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

There have been no changes to the amount of sugar required for marmalade to be marmalade. If the hon. Member is hinting, as I think she might be, that various nefarious producers are masquerading non-marmalade as actual marmalade in the UK sense of the word, she should probably tell me, or at least tell local authority trading standards officers what is going on in the local area. They can then test to see what spreads or preserves are masquerading as marmalade. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady, if she wants to hand me those questions.

The Government are committed to supporting and protecting traditional British food products such as marmalade. We do that through meaningful regulation, which supports high food standards and covers marmalade. As I hope the hon. Lady knows, given the SPS deal, we will be aligning with some of the EU’s rules—as, indeed, we already do in respect of EU retained law—which ought to make it easier for consumers to know what they are buying.

Question put and agreed to.

Independent Water Commission

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Voters want to see action, not just words. That is why I am so proud that that £104 billion of investment that we have secured started to be spent in April. It is already being invested; people will see the change as a result of this. That will help to restore their confidence and their trust in politics, so shattered after 14 years of the Conservatives.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Can the Secretary of State publish the data that quantifies the amount lost in leaks, so that the public can understand exactly how much water and how much of their hard-earned money is lost? It will also help the water companies to focus on fixing their pipes; it is no good just building another reservoir, as they might do in my area, if the water just continues to be lost en route to where it is needed.

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Lady is right: transparency is always very important. I believe that data is available and am happy to write to direct her to it so she can share the information with her constituents.

Draft Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 General Committees

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Briefly, the Liberal Democrats welcome the draft instrument, which brings the sheep carcase regulations in line with the existing beef and pig regulations. We want to ensure that sheep meat producers receive a fair price for their products, and to increase transparency and fairness for the sector, thus benefiting farmers, processors and customers across the wider supply chain. In the interest of a little levity, I will just say that we do not want our farmers fleeced.

Recycling of Tyres

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Tessa Munt will move the motion and then the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of recycling end-of-life tyres.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The Government have placed the circular economy at the heart of their agenda. The circular economy taskforce has been established and is expected to report back later this year. Adopting a focus on the circular economy means changing the way we think about so-called waste. We need to see things currently perceived as waste as a resource—a resource with an economic value that can be recovered and contribute to the economic growth that this Government so seriously seek. We also need to implement policies designed to maximise the economic value from these resources.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is introducing a really important debate. A company called Tyre Renewals Ltd operates in Castle Cary in my constituency. Founded back in 1967, it specialises in tyre repairs and the shredding and granulation of used tyres to produce recycled rubber products. That prevents tyres from going into landfill and leaking harmful chemicals and microplastics into the environment, including waterways. Does my hon. Friend agree that urgent Government investment in tyre recycling infrastructure is needed to tackle the environmental hazards posed by worn tyres?

[Tessa Munt]

Yes, indeed; I shall come to that shortly.

The previous Government talked a great deal about the circular economy, had their own circular economy strategy and brought forward consultations on a number of measures to close certain loopholes that created an opening for waste crime. Sadly, despite multiple commitments to taking action, not enough was actually implemented. This Minister knows that it is not sufficient to talk about the circular economy; she and her team need to take action to deliver the changes that have been talked about for far too long.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. We in Northern Ireland had a problem with tyres and bonfires—it is in the nature of what happens—but over the last number of years, councils have had a distinct policy to make sure that that does not happen, and it has not happened. Does the hon. Lady agree that local businesses must not simply take the easy option of sending their tyres to be recycled overseas, which seems to end in fires, and that they should be encouraged to send them to recognised recycling groups in the United Kingdom, where there are guarantees that the tyres will be completely recycled and the rubber, fibre and steel will all be reused?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that should be the case. We need to tighten up the licensing regulation and how the whole process works, so that we can reduce the amount of damage that is done.

According to global trade data, the UK disposes of approximately 600,000 tonnes of end-of-life tyres each year. About 350,000 tonnes of those are currently shipped to India. Of the remaining 250,000, some are exported to markets such as Turkey and Morocco, where they are used in the manufacture of cement. Some are processed in the UK to create materials to produce asphalt, which has many benefits for road safety and for the environment, and which enhances the circular economy. I will return to UK processing shortly.

The fate of the 350,000 tonnes of tyres exported to India raises serious environmental and public health concerns. India, like other non-OECD countries, does not have the same stringent environmental emissions regulations that we have in the UK. However, most tyres exported to India are shipped as “green list waste” under the waste shipments regulations, which are contained in assimilated EU law.

Batches tend to be sent in the form of baled whole tyres, which creates two risks. First, some tyres exported in that way are then sold for refitting in India, leading to road safety issues. Secondly, when exported as whole tyre bales, most of the tyres are sent on to rudimentary batch pyrolysis sites. In Indian batch pyrolysis, tyres are commonly burned to produce a high-sulphur heavy fuel called tyre pyrolysis oil—which is typically burned, causing direct harm to the environment—and low-grade carbon black, which is often unsuitable for reuse. The process involves enormous amounts of energy and the flaring of syngas directly into the atmosphere, without filtering or scrubbing, in conditions that are hazardous to operator health, the local population and the environment.

The use of imported end-of-life tyres in India—both for refitting vehicles and in batch pyrolysis—is illegal under Indian domestic law, but there is a lack of even the most basic enforcement capacity to uphold the law. The reality of the uses of imported end-of-life tyres in India was the subject of a recent BBC documentary and, as the Minister will be aware, additionally the subject of a recent legal challenge against the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by the campaign group Fighting Dirty. The challenge relates to the failure of the agency and the Department to take action to prevent the illegal use of end-of-life tyres exported to India.

It is important to note that this is not a historical waste crime, but one that is ongoing. Every single day, we ship around 1,000 tonnes of UK waste tyres to India. Investigators from the UK and Australia have used GPS tracking devices in several consignments of waste tyres shipped to India over the last few years, and have consistently evidenced that 100% of the tyres tracked do not reach their intended destination, with the majority being diverted to batch pyrolysis plants. What investigations has the Department undertaken to track consignments of waste tyres shipped abroad? Secondly, what conclusions has the Department reached in relation to digital waste tracking?

There has been growing concern that developed countries, such as the UK, are dumping their waste problems on developing countries and have continued to export their pollution over many years. International conventions such as the Basel convention seek to better manage waste internationally, and there is domestic law to give effect to such undertakings. What is the Minister’s view on a potential producer responsibility scheme for the UK’s end of life tyres?

In response to the legal challenge and the BBC documentary, the Government have announced that the Environment Agency will conduct a review into the issue. Today I seek clarification from the Minister about the scope of that review, and I have four questions at this point. Will the review be limited to an assessment of the enforcement of the existing legal provisions contained in the Basel convention and the waste shipments regulations? Will the review enable the Environment Agency to consider policy improvements? Will the review make policy recommendations to Ministers? How and when does the review intend to engage with the industry and interested parties?

The Environment Act 2021 significantly strengthened the powers available to the Government to manage and track waste exports. Section 62 of the Act added to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by creating further regulatory powers to better manage and track waste exports and the countries they pass through. It also established additional powers of direction for Ministers. As I understand it, those important new powers have yet to be used.

Will the Minister use her new powers under section 62 of the 2021 Act to take action to address the problems with waste tyre exports? Because end-of-life tyres are currently deemed green list waste under assimilated law through the waste shipments regulations, they are not notifiable and, as a result, are difficult to track. Will the Minister confirm that she will amend the waste shipments regulations to remove end-of-life tyres from the green list category and make such exports notifiable?

Under environmental permitting regulations, there are exemptions from the need to have a permit for a number of treatments. The so-called T8 waste exemption, applying to end-of-life tyres, has long been recognised as a problem. Operators can self-certify that they handle numbers below a certain threshold and are therefore eligible for an exemption. Marking your own homework is never a good idea: often those T8-exempt operators are exactly those who trade in baled tyres to India by undercutting our responsible operators who act within the regulated regime with a permit.

The Environment Agency identified the T8 exemption as a problem that made committing waste crime easier as far back as a decade ago. There were then various calls for evidence. Eventually, around three years ago, there was a consultation on removing this exemption, and the last Government confirmed that they would remove it 18 months ago. Then, nothing happened. Can the Minister confirm whether parliamentary counsel has drafted the necessary regulations and that, unlike her predecessors, she will lay the statutory instrument without further delay so that loophole can finally be closed?

As we seek to identify what makes up a circular economy, we might learn lessons from approaches taken elsewhere in the world. Australia offers a powerful case study to demonstrate what can be achieved through simple legislative tweaks to end-of-life tyre exports. Four years ago, recognising the environmental impact of allowing those tyres to be exported to countries such as India for use in rudimentary batch pyrolysis plants, the Australian Government introduced a new condition that waste tyres had to be shredded before they could be exported. That Government also created a new system of notification and licensing for exporters. The Act that created the provisions was the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, which had some similar objectives to parts of the UK Environment Act 2021. Subsequent regulations giving effect to the changes were the Recycling and Waste Reduction (Export—Waste Tyres) Rules 2021.

First, the new Australian provisions required operators to have a waste export licence to export waste tyres at all. Secondly, they required that tyres could be exported only in a form that had been processed to shreds or crumbs of no more than 150 mm—just under 6 inches. Those could be used in modern pyrolysis to create tyre-derived fuel for uses such as sustainable aviation, or for other purposes, but only under a scheme verified by Tyre Stewardship Australia’s foreign end market verification programme, so the fate of every export was known.

At a stroke, the export of whole tyres, which could previously be used illegally overseas, was ended. When shredded, tyres cannot be refitted illegally to vehicles, nor can they be used in rudimentary batch pyrolysis plants, since those systems require whole tyres as feedstock. In addition to taking responsibility for the country’s waste and removing an environmental hazard from countries such as India, the regulatory changes also created additional feedstock for the domestic recycling industry in Australia. That was a spur to the circular economy, creating confidence for investors to increase capacity in the domestic production of asphalt and to invest in a new generation of modern, continuous-feed pyrolysis plants that can use shredded tyres and have a more positive environmental impact.

Modern continuous-feed pyrolysis plants maintain steady temperatures, and achieve about 250% higher throughput for the same energy input as batch pyrolysis. The syngas is captured and reused to heat the kilns through gas turbines, which removes carbon dioxide emissions. Such plants produce higher grade carbon black, which is pelletised and reused in tyre manufacturing, supporting the circular economy. Finally, the resultant tyre pyrolysis fuel oil is refined, undergoing further processing that would meet stringent UK environmental regulations.

The UK has dormant capacity to shred and process around 150,000 tonnes of end-of-life tyres each year. The reason why the plants are dormant is twofold. First, companies are unable to secure sufficient feedstock for plants because so many tyres are exported to India in baled form. Secondly, tyre collectors receive more money from India than the gate fees paid to companies who could recycle the materials here at home. The UK receives about £13 million in revenue from baled tyres sent abroad. A study by Fluid Ice and Imperial College assessed that if those end-of-life tyres were processed in the UK, even if the resultant products were exported, the revenue would be over £250 million. Several new businesses are seeking to invest in modern continuous-feed pyrolysis plants in the UK but they will do so only if they have confidence in the availability of their UK feedstock. We know that the potential feedstock exists, but it is currently being exported for illegal use abroad.

I have three more questions for the Minister. If we are to adopt the circular economy agenda, should we not support investors who want to recycle end-of-life tyres here? Does she agree that we should take steps to ensure that UK companies have a domestic feedstock to give them confidence? Finally, does she agree that we should take responsibility for our own waste, process it here in the UK and maximise the economic value of that resource? The Australian model for end-of-use tyres seems good and effective, and we could easily replicate its impact and effect with relatively minor changes.

I recognise that I have asked 13 questions, to which I would like answers, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on stopping the export of whole tyres to India, introducing better regulations and licensing, ensuring enforcement, and adopting a model parallel to that of Australia. I have provided her with a list of my questions, and I am happy to have her responses in writing, in the interest of completeness.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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)).

Veterinary Products in Waterways

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on securing the debate, and I especially congratulate her on her first Adjournment debate in the House. I am sure that it will be the first of many—and probably the first of many regarding water, so we might get used to seeing each other on such evenings.

Obviously, we cannot miss the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his birthday. I am sure that I speak for the entire House when I say that I hope he has had a wonderful day. An Adjournment debate would not be the same without him, so I thank him for joining us, even on his birthday.

I know that the Government have carried out monitoring in the Tiverton and Minehead area to deliver programmes such as updating the water framework directive status, natural capital ecosystems assessment and catchment sensitive farming. As hon. Members know, the quality of our rivers, lakes and seas is essential for supporting our ecosystems, providing clean water and producing our food. Our beautiful rivers, lakes, seas and beaches are a source of pride for our communities, and we want to restore them to that end.

I totally agree that we are a nation of pet lovers. Again, I have to mention my three wonderful cats— I never miss the opportunity to mention them—who are Meglatron, Lily and Serena. Serena was given that name because she is such a beautifully serene lady, and Meglatron because he is a crazy little boy we have running around the house all the time. The hon. Lady is quite right, and I am sure that the concerns about fleas and ticks are felt by many pet owners up and down the country.

On our wider neonics work, on 21 March—just four days ago—we released the national action plan on pesticides. It has three objectives: to encourage the take-up of integrated pest management; to establish a timeline and targets for the reduction of the use of pesticides; and to strengthen compliance, to ensure safety and better environmental outcomes. Can you believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the NAP, which we published just last Friday—we put out the written ministerial statement on Monday—had been waiting over a decade under the previous Government? We managed to get it out in eight months. I am quite proud of that.

On our wider work on neonics, before Christmas we made a written ministerial statement talking about how we wanted to ensure a complete ban in the use of the emergency authorisation. The hon. Lady will know that I declined this year’s emergency authorisation for the use of Cruiser pesticides. That demonstrates the Government’s commitment to tackling some of the concerns that are widely held.

The quality of our water is, of course, essential for supporting ecosystems, providing clean drinking water and producing our food. Maintaining healthy and clean water sources is vital to achieving the Government’s mission for sustainable economic growth, but the public are also concerned about chemicals used for the treatment and prevention of fleas and ticks for pets in UK waterways. The Government are committed to understanding the impacts of veterinary medicines entering our environment.

Speaking more widely about water quality, the flawed water system that the Government inherited is still discharging record levels of sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas. The situation is not just an environmental failure; it is also a public health crisis, demanding our immediate and decisive action to rectify decades of neglect and mismanagement. We need a systematic approach to tackling issues that impact the whole of the drainage and waste water systems, stopping the unnecessary pressure from rainwater and sewage misuse entering the system to the point at which it is discharged into the environment.

As mentioned, the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 gained Royal Assent on 24 February 2025, boosting the power of water sector regulators to tackle pollution. That major legislation delivers on this Government’s promise to clean up the water sector and is the most significant increase in enforcement powers for water industry regulators in a decade. The Act will give regulators new powers to take tougher and faster action to crack down on water companies damaging the environment and failing their customers. However, we do not just want to give that—oh no, we want to do so much more.

Further legislation aimed at fundamentally transforming how our entire water system operates will be guided by the findings of the Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, which is currently conducting the largest review of the industry since privatisation. I also mention the wonderful start to the day I had today, because earlier this morning, at 9 o’clock, I met Sir Steve Redgrave and lots of young rowers from the University of Reading to discuss how we can improve our water quality for the rivers and lakes that we all love. It was a pleasure to have a cup of coffee with him very early this morning and talk about our shared ambition to clean up our rivers.

Having spoken about the importance of water quality, I will turn in detail to the topic of veterinary medicines in waterways. The Government recognise the presence of parasiticides—I nearly got away with that—in the wider environment as a significant concern, and we are actively gathering evidence on that complex, multifactorial issue. All veterinary medicines undergo a rigorous scientific assessment before approval. As the regulator for veterinary medicines, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate balances the benefits of veterinary medicine for animal health and welfare, as well as human health protection, against the associated risk, which obviously includes environmental risks. Medicines are only ever authorised if the benefit outweighs the risk. The VMD follows internationally recognised guidelines for assessing the environmental risks of veterinary medicines for all animals, including pets.

Fleas and ticks can lead to, as mentioned, discomfort and distress in pets. Those parasites can host microbes that cause disease in pets and potentially in pet owners who encounter the fleas and ticks. Topical flea treatments play a crucial role in protecting both animal and human health from fleas, ticks and disease. It is therefore essential that we take a balanced approach to the benefits of such treatments and their potential environmental impact when considering the issue.

While there is evidence of the presence of fipronil and imidacloprid in fresh waters, it is well established that, as insecticides, these substances are inherently toxic to invertebrates and we do not understand the effects that current levels are having at a population and ecosystem level. We are, however, committed to understanding the potential impacts of veterinary medicines entering the environment. The VMD has led on the formation of a cross-Government group on pharmaceuticals in the environment to develop a co-ordinated strategy to reduce the impact of the substances in the environment. The group includes key governmental bodies, including the Environment Agency, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and representatives from the devolved Governments. While the VMD is prioritising the development of an evidence base, working to resolve the issue will require involvement by all key stakeholders, including the pharmaceutical industry and veterinary professionals.

The work does not come without challenge and stakeholders remain divided on the way forward. Some advocate for the benefits of year-round parasiticide use for humans and animal health, others emphasise the need for more cautious use, while some push for a complete ban. Any decision to limit use must be carefully weighed against the benefits to ensure a balanced approach, as restrictions could impact animal welfare, animal health and even public health. Also, there is still a critical evidence gap in understanding the full impact of those options on both animal and human health, as well as on the environment, and that must be explored further before any regulatory action is taken.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

rose—

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Emma Hardy]

I will give way to the hon. Lady on the Liberal Democrat Bench and then to my hon. Friend.

[Tessa Munt]

Could the Minister just clarify whether that group will consider the benefits of using natural remedies, or a combination of natural remedies, and of ensuring that people are fully aware of the benefits of that, and that that will be in some way quantified, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) mentioned during her speech.

Farming

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on opening the debate and on the thoughtful and knowledgeable speech he made. I also compliment Members on both sides of the Chamber for what they have said.

I was brought up on a farm. I was the wee boy who shooed the cows home to the faraway field. I represent the biggest constituency in the UK. I have an awful lot of farms and crofts in my constituency. Farming is part of our way of life. It is about the food we eat. It is about the fight against climate change. It is about our heritage and, in constituencies such as mine, it is about the tourism economy. The change of Government has been difficult before. Brexit did not help—we all know that argument—and botched trade deals have not helped either.

Much has been said about the taxation, and I will not repeat it, but I will remark on one thing that has been said, which is that land prices in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland are much higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom, so the effect of the taxation will be rather larger there.

To compound this, cuts to DEFRA’s day-to-day spending mean that many family farms and rural businesses will struggle. That is why my party is saying that we should raise the farming budget by £1 billion. If we can do that, perhaps we can help. We want to see a renegotiation of trade agreements to protect British farmers and a strengthening of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

First, I should declare that my partner is a conservation farmer in Somerset.

Having been Parliamentary Private Secretary to Vince Cable, the then Business Secretary who set up the Groceries Code Adjudicator, I recall his frustrations that the then Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to grant the adjudicator the power she needed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the adjudicator will never be able to exercise meaningful control over the big supermarkets, which fund its operations through a levy, if the cost of a single investigation is greater than its annual budget? May I ask the Minister through my hon. Friend to remedy this decade-old wrong?

[Jamie Stone]

My hon. Friend brings knowledge from the past, which is very valuable to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland is also a champion of this cause, and what he says strikes a chord among farmers in my constituency. Getting a fair deal is fundamental to making farms viable for the long term. It is not that we want to do everything, but I hope that the Government will engage constructively with my right hon. Friend on this. It is too important to let this one go, and it could be an easy win for the Government and for all of us.

Agricultural Land: Protection

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

My thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) for securing today’s debate, delivering such an excellent and thoughtful speech and speaking so eloquently about her lovely constituency, and also—like my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington)—for teasing out some of the challenges, particularly around housing and the importance of nature.

Nature underpins everything from our personal wellbeing to our economy, but the truth is that nature is in crisis. That is why the Government are committed to charting a new course and ensuring that nature is truly on the road to recovery. Ensuring nature’s recovery is one of my Department’s five key priorities, alongside cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas; moving to a zero-waste economy; supporting farmers to boost our food security; and protecting communities from flooding. It is nature’s recovery that will support and complement those other priorities and contribute to the Government’s central mission for economic growth.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury raised the important issue of planning reforms. The Government are determined to transform the planning system to ensure a win-win for house building and for nature. Nature recovery is a top priority, alongside the need to overhaul the planning system, grow the economy and reach net zero. It is not a matter of choosing one of these priorities over another. Sustained economic growth depends on a healthy natural environment.

The Secretary of State has already confirmed that the Government are undertaking a rapid review of the environmental improvement plan. Our review will ensure that it is fit for purpose to deliver on our legally binding Environment Act 2021 targets and our international commitment to protect 30% of England’s land and sea by 2030. So this debate is extremely timely, and I will seek to address and respond to the points raised.

To restore nature, we need to create, restore and connect wildlife-rich habitat at scale, reduce pressure on species, including from pollution and climate change, and take targeted action to recover specific species. The Government will deliver for nature, working in partnership with civil society, communities and businesses to restore and protect our natural world. Working with farmers and landowners to deliver nature recovery will be crucial, which is why we are fully committed to the environmental land management schemes.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Would the Minister be keen to meet some of my constituents, who are threatened by the actions of EDF and Hinkley Point C, which wish to create salt marsh on land that is currently farmed in north Somerset? That is causing a huge amount of distress to people locally, including young Sophie Cole, whom I met this weekend and who has just started on her path as a young farmer. She is 28, and she and all the villagers in Kingston Seymour are very keen to make sure that the Minister understands the tensions between the creation of salt marsh at the behest of Hinkley and their natural desire to carry on farming that has taken place for hundreds of years.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I would be happy to learn more about the issues that the hon. Lady has raised.

The Government will optimise ELMS so that they produce the right outcomes for all farmers while delivering food security and nature recovery in a just and equitable way. We will confirm plans for the roll-out of schemes and our wider approach as soon as possible. ELMS, including the sustainable farming incentive, countryside stewardship and landscape recovery, will contribute to the biodiversity targets at scale by supporting nature-friendly farming and creating and restoring wildlife-rich habitats. They will also help to restore and improve the condition of protected sites, including sites of special scientific interest. From this year, ELM agreements are expected to bring or maintain up to 480,000 hectares of eligible SSSI habitat in England under favourable management, and to create or restore up to 300,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat, in addition to up to 200,000 hectares of peat and woodland by 2042.

In addition to the action that we will take to recover nature by creating and restoring habitat, we will take action to effectively protect wildlife-rich habitats and species. That protection is crucial, as species are in decline. That includes important farmland species such as farmland birds, including the turtle dove, which has declined in the UK by 97% since 1994. However, where nature-friendly farmers and major partners such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the wildlife trusts and the National Trust, have put the right ELM measures in the right places, we have seen increases in scarce farmland bird species such as chough, cirl bunting, and stone curlew.

Our work to protect nature will include action to restore our protected sites, which are vital wildlife havens facing increasing pressures from climate change, pollution, and invasive non-native species. Natural England is working to get protected sites into favourable condition. That includes piloting new powers to put in place protected sites strategies to deliver improvements in partnership with others and working with the SSSI major landowners group to develop landscape-scale approaches. Natural England is also working with farmers through the catchment-sensitive farming programme to improve water and air quality on farms around protected sites. That includes helping farmers to secure funding to make management changes to improve their condition.

We will also protect our most beautiful landscapes and help our national parks and national landscapes to become wilder, greener and more accessible to all as we deliver our commitment to protect 30% of land for nature by 2030.