Mary Creagh MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Jan 2026 · Antisocial Behaviour on Canals and Rivers: Bath · Hansard source

  More

  What the hon. Gentleman says is so true. I know from my enjoyment of the Coventry canal running through Foleshill that lots of communities fear canals. They do not think it is a blue space for their recreation. They do not feel ownership of it. The difference between the usership of the canal that runs through Foleshill—through the poorest part of my constituency; the poorest part of the city of Coventry—and the canal that runs through King’s Cross St Pancras, where I have cycled up and down many times, is staggering. Communities can feel ownership or exclusion. Everywhere is safer where everybody feels that they can belong. Unpicking some of those barriers and working with communities that may be typecast, such as young people, is a positive solution, ensuring that people do not want to litter, leave their beer bottles or engage in antisocial behaviour. Having read about this beforehand, it seems to me that there is an issue with stag parties on boats—there certainly has been in the past—which sounds quite tricky. We must also ensure that people have competence, so that if they hire a boat that is supposed to go only 3 or 4 mph, they actually know what they are doing, because they are quite difficult to steer. One does not want to go too fast, as I discovered when I had to have the tiller taken off me when we were going through a very narrow bridge. I am always grateful to have training in these issues. Canals, towpaths and river banks are shared spaces, freely accessible to anyone, and that is absolutely right. They are used by walkers, anglers, joggers and cyclists. As a cyclist, I see antisocial behaviour on canal towpaths. I am very conscious of trying to avoid it—of slowing down and, particularly when tackling bridges, of going super slowly so that there is no unexpected surprise for people who may be wearing headphones. The trust has published its towpath code and encourages all users to be respectful and considerate. Pedestrians have priority, cyclists are urged to slow down, dog walkers should keep their dogs under control—because that is quite tricky—and people are encouraged to take their litter home with them. There are, however, a mindless minority who use canals and towpaths inconsiderately. We have seen instances of fires being lit, littering, fly-tipping, drunken behaviour, loud noise at night from moored boats, speeding boats, blockages on the towpath and out-of-control dogs. The trust works closely with Avon and Somerset police, and Bath and North East Somerset council, to address safety and community concerns. It is engaging to develop the antisocial behaviour action plan that manages the competing demands of waterway users and local residents fairly. We saw an example of that recently in London, where the trust worked with the police to remove an illegal encampment from the River Lea Navigation that had caused significant disruption to the local community and to other boaters nearby. The Government fully support the trust and law enforcement agencies in dealing with antisocial behaviour, and we intend to strengthen the powers available to them to do so. One issue raised this evening is the statutory powers available to the trust to enforce its rules. I have heard the hon. Lady’s concerns that the powers are inadequate and fragmented, and can lead to lengthy and costly enforcement. The trust recognises this challenge. In December 2024 it established an independent boat licensing commission to review its licensing regime. The commission published its report in November 2025, with 36 recommendations to make licensing fairer, simpler, more enforceable and better aligned with the trust’s charitable objectives. It recommended that the trust should: clearly define the navigation requirement for continuous cruising boat licences, to replace the current vague legal requirement for “bone fide navigation”; seek powers to introduce differential charging or rationing for moorings in areas of high congestion; seek powers to use force as a last resort, with safeguards, following a court order to remove a boat from a waterway; have the civil powers to levy fines on licence holders in response to breaches of terms and conditions, and on towpath users for antisocial behaviour such as fly-tipping; have the right to fit a tracking device to any vessel that is not complying with movement requirements, particularly in congested areas; and make the case to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for consolidating the legislation by which the trust operates. The trust is looking at those recommendations, determining which to prioritise, recognising that many will require new or amended legislation that will need wider consultation. Where legislative change may be needed, the Government are ready to support the trust. We are in regular touch with the trust, including through quarterly formal meetings with the CEO and the executive team. We will use our engagement to support them in identifying quick and robust solutions. As an independent charity, the trust makes its own management and operational decisions. Since taking over its statutory duties from British Waterways in 2012, it has received Government support as it establishes its role and builds greater financial independence. The canal network presents a considerable challenge, but the trust has a significant commercial and charitable portfolio. This is a main source of its income, rather than filling shortfalls. Harnessing the diverse uses of the canal network will be vital to maintaining it for the future. The trust has proved to be commercially dynamic, doubling the value of its property endowment from Government, from around £500 million in 2012 to £1 billion today. Last year that endowment provided around £50 million of revenue a year, while boat licences provided around £55 million. The Government currently provide the trust with an annual grant of £52.6 million. That amount represented 22% of the trust’s total income in the last financial year. The grant primarily contributes to the trust’s waterways infrastructure maintenance costs, which, as the hon. Lady says, are considerable but which also keep certain heritage skills alive. I remember that Stanley Ferry up near Wakefield was the site of the last lock gate makers in the country, and their incredible craftwork can be seen on locks across the country—Members might want to look out for their badge when they are next at a canal lock. The Government have agreed to provide the trust with a further 10-year grant of £401 million from April 2027. That will continue to support the trust’s canal infrastructure maintenance, helping to keep the waterways safe and navigable. In closing, I thank all hon. Members for contributing to the debate, and I agree that we must take action to tackle antisocial behaviour, in all its forms, on the canals and towpaths. People deserve to enjoy these blue walkways and amazing places. Who would have believed that it is possible to see a kingfisher on Coventry canal right next to the old Cash’s silkworks, one mile from the heart of Coventry city centre? It was a sight I never thought I would see—my first ever kingfisher. People deserve to live free from nuisance, intimidation and damage to their property and to feel safe in the place they call home. Dignity and respect are not optional extras but the foundations of strong, decent communities that have pride in where they live. We will keep working until every neighbourhood feels safe, including those on the canals in Bath and across the country. The Canal & River Trust is playing its part by working closely with local authorities, police and other agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour on the waterways. It is also working to strengthen and streamline its licensing powers to ensure fairness for all users. We will continue to support this work through grant funding, assisting with any legislative changes that may be necessary. Question put and agreed to .

• 21 Jan 2026 · Antisocial Behaviour on Canals and Rivers: Bath · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Lady were to convene a regular set of meetings—say, quarterly—on this with the police, the local council and the CRT, I have found that the steady drumbeat of local accountability is very effective in bringing these partners together to tackle these issues, alongside the community of users and canal dwellers.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Antisocial Behaviour on Canals and Rivers: Bath · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing the debate and thank her for raising this important issue. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his insightful intervention about the canals in Northern Ireland. May I, through my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), send my sympathies to the parents of the little boy who died in Doncaster? His tragic story is a reminder that a senseless act of vandalism, or what looks and feels like fun in the moment, can have absolutely devastating consequences. It is also a reminder of the need for those responsible for reservoirs and towpaths to have in place a regime that makes sure the safety equipment is always there and properly maintained. I share the concerns of hon. Members and the public about these serious matters. We have heard about significant nuisance to local people and communities that can also involve damage to property, physical threats and even assault. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the cost of living crisis is at the heart of this, because people have been priced out of houses in the gorgeous city of Bath, where there are many second homeowners and Airbnbs. I enjoyed a weekend there with my husband to celebrate our wedding anniversary, and it is lovely—we can feel that it is a very special place—but it may be very hard for people to afford local housing in her city. The Government are committed to tackling this type of antisocial behaviour. We are proposing a range of measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently in Committee in the other place. Those new powers include a new respect order to ban adult offenders from engaging in specified activities, and increasing the maximum fixed penalty for breaches of a public spaces protection order or a community protection notice, from £100 to £500. As the hon. Member said, and as I know from cycling up and down canal towpaths—slowly, and always dinging my bell twice when behind pedestrians—people living on the waterways are a deterrent against the types of antisocial behaviour that the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. The natural surveillance of the people living on the boats means there is a huge disincentive to engage in criminal behaviour close to them. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the Canal & River Trust is the responsible authority for the Kennet and Avon canal and the River Avon in Bath. It is aware of the problems and the concerns raised locally. It does not have policing powers, but it is responsible for the safe management both of its land and of waterways. It has policies governing unacceptable behaviour and site management, and those set out the expected conduct and outline when the trust can intervene or escalate issues.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Protection and Management of Young Trees · Hansard source

  More

  What a pleasure it is to stand in this glorious room panelled with English oak cut down in the wake of world war two to refurbish this great Chamber of democracy, and at this Dispatch Box, a gift from New Zealand crafted from its native puriri wood, which I see every time I stand here. I passionately agree with my hon. Friend’s opening speech. I am so grateful to her for bringing this topic to the House today. Across England, trees and woodlands are more than just part of our landscape; they are intimately woven into our national identity. They cool our air and our cities and shelter our wildlife. Whether it is on a walk through an ancient forest or for a moment beneath a single tree in a city park, trees have a remarkable ability to restore us. They help us with anxiety, grief and loneliness and give us space to breathe. They are woven into our shared national culture. They have stood as symbols of endurance, wisdom and renewal. They are centuries-old sentinels—witnesses to our history. Growing up in Coventry, I played every weekend in Coventry’s War Memorial Park, a great city’s act of remembrance for those we lost in world war one. Every tree has a plaque beneath it remembering the people who died. It is a living memorial to the lost. Our woodlands are places where childhood memories are made and where Christmas strolls and new year’s day walks become traditions, where children climb, and occasionally fall, where dens are made and where dogs are walked—hopefully on a leash. As the Minister with responsibility for forestry, I have the privilege of regularly seeing the majesty and benefits of our woodlands up close, and I reassure my hon. Friend that we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that we have woodlands and trees for the future. Just last year, I opened Forestry England’s Delamere seed processing centre—a net zero building made of timber—which is named after long-serving Forestry England team member Vernon Stockton. The centre will process up to 4 tonnes of high-quality tree seeds, providing the starting point for the forests of the future. I have stood in Kielder forest with the people who manage it. I have visited the Community Forest Trust, which sent me home with two Scots pines and two hornbeams. Three of those trees have survived three London droughts. Of course, back in 2011 I led the fight against the Conservative party proposal to sell off the public forest estate; I am passionate about trees. My hon. Friend is right to list the benefits of trees. Tree-planting in England is at its highest-recorded rate for 20 years—7,000 hectares last year. We will boost that further through our manifesto commitment to create three new national forests. What a privilege it was to plant a tree as part of that establishment. We will plant 20 million trees over the next 25 years to create that new western forest. On Monday, we opened the expressions of interest process for the planned forest in the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. We will launch the competition for a new national forest in the north or the midlands by July this year. These new forests will bring peace, shade and joy to millions around the country, and the Ox-Cam forest will bring forestry much closer to my hon. Friend’s constituents. As my hon. Friend says, without maintenance in the early years to help establishment of the trees, the impact of the investment can be reduced. That is why the Government fund establishment and provide expertise and advice to keep trees alive. All Government-funded woodland creation must be designed and planted to the UK forestry standard—a world-leading technical standard for sustainable forest creation and management agreed between all four UK nations. At its root is planning and design. Good planning grows strong woodlands and gives our trees the best start in life. Paying for planning is not a cost; it is an investment in resilience. That is why we offer the woodland creation planning grant—thousands of pounds to fund the groundwork before the first sapling goes in. Of course, once they are in the ground, young trees are vulnerable and need maintenance to establish. Maintenance includes checking young trees for disease, replacing dead trees, and sometimes even watering during periods of drought. That is why we also fund ongoing maintenance through the England woodland creation offer. Capital payments cover the planting essentials, followed by £400 per hectare per year for 15 years, to support maintenance tasks that give the trees the best possible chance of survival. We do not rely on planting alone; we back nature’s own hand. Funding for natural colonisation lets woodlands expand organically, allowing species to establish where conditions suit them best. It may appear tatty and scruffy to some, but nature thrives in the mess and wild—it thrives best when we let it go. It is unrealistic to expect 100% survival rates, because that does not happen in nature, as we have seen during recent storms. Last autumn we witnessed a great spectacle of nature: a mast year in which the overproduction of seeds and acorns meant that they blanketed woodland floors. After woodland species have gorged themselves and are ready for winter—the squirrels in my garden are absolutely fat as butter—there is still more than enough intact material to produce the next generation of trees. Nature knows that not every seed is going to make it. We mirror that approach. The schemes that we fund as a Government dictate that trees are planted at a higher density than would be seen in mature woodland, to take into account the natural level of tree mortality. Some trees do die, and some are lost to tree disease—a risk to both established and newly planted trees and woodlands. We have seen what can happen with ash dieback and now with Ips typographus, the eight-toothed spruce bark beetle—that is quite a mouthful. The Government have a robust regulatory regime in place that minimises biosecurity risks from imported material while meeting World Trade Organisation standards. Recipients of many Government grants are required to source trees from suppliers that meet the plant health management standard. Healthy saplings stay healthy because we prevent pathways for harm. My hon. Friend got a book about trees for Christmas. I am the lucky owner of a brand-new almond tree that I got for my birthday, which is going to do battle with the olive and the bay tree. Let’s see what happens—I shall report back next year. Species choice is ever more important in a changing climate. Today’s species and the trees of the past may not thrive in the near future. For example, I have been told that as we have hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters, cherry trees are a species that may not be climate-resilient in the future. Forestry England has published a list of 30 priority tree species selected for ability to withstand extreme weather and resist pests and diseases. It is crucial that those who want to plant trees and create woodlands do so with an eye on the future. I said at the beginning that I agreed with most of what my hon. Friend said. I, too, am furious when I see parched trees lining motorways or streets on new developments where the trees have been left to die. I encourage local people who care about their trees to water them, particularly in the early days and during hot summers. My hon. Friend mentioned the urban tree challenge fund. Like our woodland creation grants, that fund did not simply fund planting; it provided multi-year establishment costs alongside the up-front capital costs. In our urban tree planting grants, we require evidence of good establishment rates, and we withhold payments where that has not been met. That is not always the case for planting that is not funded by Government—for example, on the new housing estate that my hon. Friend talked about, where, despite planning conditions, the same effort towards tree survival is not always made. Developers must do better. Those trees are not decorations; they are an investment that will bring future residents the benefits we have talked about today. Aesthetics cannot take priority over survival. There is a wealth of guidance provided by organisations inside and outside of Government on what the right tree for the right place is, and I urge people to use it. We are improving that guidance. Our Trees Outside Woodland project compared the survival rates of different establishment approaches. That project concluded last year, and the findings are feeding into our grant designs for tree establishment. We have invested over £150,000 to investigate in greater detail the causes of mortality in recently planted trees. That work is ongoing. Of course, we have globally leading science down at Kew Gardens. I had the pleasure of spending an hour with Kevin Martin, the head of tree collections and arboriculture, who has been going over to Kazakhstan in central Asia to collect tree seeds and do the research to work out which trees are going to work in the future. The upcoming tree action plan is being developed in partnership across Government and with the sector, and will emphasise the importance of using best practice. Last year, as part of our procurement changes, we recognised the “grown in Britain” timber standard. We fund tree establishment because it is good government. It is climate security, it is local pride and it is economic sense. We know that great people are working in our community forests. The Forests With Impact programme is working with prisoners at His Majesty’s Prison Haverigg in Cumbria, and 250,000 saplings have been produced there to create the forests of the future. The organisation works with prisoners to ensure that social justice reparations for their crime also offers them a route out of crime and hope for their future when they leave prison. Those young trees will grow into the woodlands we promised—into greener towns, resilient farms and thriving forests. I want to conclude by thanking everyone who loves trees: thank you for believing in the power of trees and in the potential of people, and for your commitment to a greener, fairer Britain. This Government will work with those who love trees, and we look forward to creating and amplifying the impact they make. Question put and agreed to.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am not giving way, because I have only eight minutes to respond to the debate. The Conservatives’ former Prime Minister explicitly said that there was a deliberate policy of taking money away from deprived inner-city areas and giving it to rural areas. This Government are cleaning up the mess that they made, and we have stabilised the economy. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) is not in his place, because I cycled the 25 miles there from the New Forest during the covid lockdowns. He talked a lot about the 61 bus, but he did not mention anything about the rail fare freeze. His constituents will enjoy the freezing of rail fares, as well as the freezing of prescription charges, £150 off energy bills and the driving up of wages. What did the Conservatives do on each of those issues to help people in rural communities? They voted against each and every one of those measures. They left the health service on its knees, our schools were crumbling and they crashed the economy. We have done more in 18 months than they achieved in 14 miserable years, including delivering cheaper mortgages and new rights for workers, and lifting half a million people out of poverty. I want to come back to bus routes, because under the Conservatives and Lib Dems, bus routes in England declined by 50% after 2010. Some 8,000 services were slashed on their watch. We have taken immediate action through the Bus Services Act, which includes provision to support the socially necessary bus services that are so important in rural areas. I am grateful to have the bus Minister sitting next to me, and we have maintained the national £3 bus fare cap. [ Interruption. ] Members are shouting from a sedentary position, but there was no cap under the Conservative Government. [ Official Report , 12 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 5WC.](Correction) We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) about the problems of rural crime. During the 14 years of Conservative Government the recorded crime rate in rural areas of England and Wales increased by 32%. Our rural communities paid the price for the Tories being asleep on the job, and the 20,000 police officers that they and the Liberal Democrats cut in 2010. We are ensuring that rural communities will be better protected from the scourge of rural crime, such as equipment theft, livestock theft and hare coursing, which we know devastate communities, farming and wildlife. That is why we have collaborated with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Home Office to deliver a renewed rural and wildlife crime strategy, which was published last November. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) asked about waste crime, and I have visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) to see the fly-tipping there. We know that waste crime blights our rural communities and undermines legitimate businesses. The last Government let waste gangs and organised crime groups run riot, with incidents rising by 20% in their last five years, but we have announced what are we going to do.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have the opportunity to close this debate. I have to say that even in the deep, bleak midwinter, I do not recognise the gloomy, barren landscape that Conservative Members have been describing. They describe a litany of disasters. If only they had been in government for the last 14 years and been able to do something about them. As I go round our countryside, I see a quite different picture; I see millions of people in rural communities who were taken for granted and underserved by the Conservatives. That is why they kicked the party out at the last general election. We Labour Members are laser-focused on encouraging growth, and Labour is now the party of the countryside. The Conservatives should stop talking the country down and get behind our drive for growth. Let us look at the inheritance that the Conservatives left local communities: broken public services, boarded-up post offices, crumbling schools and sky-high NHS waiting lists. They have learned no lessons, offered no apologies and shown no contrition, and that is why they were booted out of government. They had a Liz Truss mini-Budget that crashed the economy, sending mortgages, rents and bills soaring. And who was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when food inflation hit 19%? It was the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, we are announcing— [ Interruption. ] The Conservatives consulted on changes in 2018.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  We are bringing them in this year. We are introducing digital waste tracking—end-to-end tracking. It is going to be operational from April this year; the infrastructure is there. We are introducing mandatory digital waste tracking, reforming the permitting system—a system that was so loose that Oscar the dog could be a waste carrier—and bringing in tougher background checks for people carrying waste. We will also require vehicles transporting waste to display their permit numbers. This was all prepped, planned and consulted on by the Conservatives, but the action is happening under this Labour Government. We have heard a lot of talk about the land use framework. We are going to have to change the way we use land, because our landscapes need to change to support climate change mitigation and adaptation, economic growth, housing delivery, food production and clean energy, and to meet our statutory targets for nature recovery. That land use framework will be published later this year. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) talked about “informal” employment relations. I am old enough to remember when the Conservative Government, in coalition with the Lib Dems, abolished the Agricultural Wages Board and the Commission for Rural Communities, and their prime plan for rural prosperity was to sell off the nation’s forests, which was met with uproar in rural communities and was the first U-turn of that coalition Government. As the Minister for forests, I have visited Hexham and stood among the pines, spruce and firs trees of Kielder forest—a landscape bursting with growth, renewal and vitality. I met the men and women who make that possible, and some of the businesses, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). We also met innovators at Egger in Hexham, one of Northumberland’s largest rural employers, which turns timber into the panels found in homes and workplaces across the country. We have announced the first new national forest for more than 30 years in Bristol, Swindon and Gloucester in the west of England, and we are not waiting 30 years to announce the next ones. In November last year, we announced the creation of two more national forests. The second will be in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, and a competition will be launched for a third new national forest in the midlands or the north of England in early 2026. Tens of millions of new trees will be planted in the coming years, alongside the new infrastructure and new homes that this country needs. I want to come to some of the points raised in the debate. I was asked about the Batters review, which had 57 recommendations, by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader), who taught me a new word: “yimfy”. Our priority is to get the implementation of this right, and we are considering all the recommendations. We will set out a detailed response to the Batters review in our 25-year farming road map. On firearms licensing, the prevention of future deaths report into the fatal shootings in Plymouth said that there were problems in the firearms licensing scheme. The fees for firearms licensing were last reviewed in 2015, so it is important that the additional revenue from firearms licensing is used to—

• 6 Jan 2026 · River Cherwell: Clearing Illegal Waste · Hansard source

  More

  I will get back to the hon. Member on that, if I may. The point of a digital waste tracking system is that everything is digitised. The problem has been that it is a paper-based register, so how can people check it at the moment? My understanding is that the move is to a digital system, but I will get back to her. I do not want to mislead her or the House. Perhaps Box officials can enlighten us while I go through the third reform of the waste permit exemptions. Thirdly, there are exemptions for three high-risk areas: end of life vehicles—that is, car scrappage—end of life tyres and scrap metal. Those exemptions have long caused problems and have been abused. We will replace them with a requirement for a full environmental permit for all those activities. We will introduce greater record keeping requirements for all waste exemption holders and impose controls on how exemptions can be managed at one site. At the moment, there are seven waste exemptions: construction waste, preparatory treatments, treatment of waste wood, manual treatment, burning vegetation at the place of production only—that is essentially for farmers—storage in containers and storage in a safe place. As I have mentioned, we have increased the waste crime investigation unit budget. It now has 43 full-time staff. People have often asked me about enabling the Environment Agency to use environmental permit income to tackle waste crime. Rules are set out by the Treasury in “Managing Public Money” about how the income raised by public bodies may be used. These rules ensure transparency to us as parliamentarians and ensure that fees and charges are not set higher than necessary to cover activity that should be properly funded from taxation. We instead look to innovative ideas, and the EA has consulted on the implementation of a 10% levy to generate a further £3.2 million of waste enforcement funding each year. That would enable a further 30% increase in enforcement activity to be targeted at activities identified by the EA as waste crime priorities. Those include tackling organised crime groups, increasing enforcement activity around specific areas of concern such as landfill sites, closing down illegal sites more quickly, using intelligence more effectively and delivering successful major criminal investigations.

• 6 Jan 2026 · River Cherwell: Clearing Illegal Waste · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s assiduousness on the issue of Walleys Quarry. That site is also now being run by the Environment Agency, and the risk of odour that his constituents were really grievously suffering is now extremely low, but that has come at a cost, as he rightly says. This is nothing new. When there is a problem and no action is taken and no new policy is created, these illegal businesses think, “Well, it’s a victimless crime, so I can carry on making money.” Then they tell their friends and, guess what, soon many flowers are blooming. But they are the wrong sort of flowers, and this creates incentives. Then of course, the legitimate businesses are like, “Hang on, why am I paying all these fees if all I need to do is buy a field, dig it up and dump stuff in it?” This creates disincentives for legitimate operators as well. I am only too aware of this. It was starting post-2016 when the then Government were focused on leaving the EU and the large international issues. I was chairing the Environmental Audit Committee at the time and I was always worried about what was going to happen to waste, including chemical waste, once we put up a border with our nearest neighbours. Secondly, we will reform waste management and transport. Instead of the current light-touch registration system, it will now be a permitted system. We will move on from a system that was so lax that people were able to sign up Oscar the dead dog to be a waste carrier. Activists were doing that back in 2018-19, so we have known about these problems. Anyone can falsify a bit of paper. We will introduce tougher background checks for operators and tougher penalties for those who break the law. We will also require vehicles that transport waste—the man with the van—to display their permit numbers on their vehicles and on their advertising, so service users can be reassured that their waste is being handled by an accredited business rather than criminals. The reform will introduce mandatory technical competence for all permit holders, meaning that anyone transporting or making decisions about waste will have to demonstrate that they are competent to do so, rather than simply just going on a register. Waste will be managed by authorised persons only and in a safe manner.

• 6 Jan 2026 · River Cherwell: Clearing Illegal Waste · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the things that I am very interested in exploring is what the playbook is. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock asked who such things should be reported to, and the problem is that if that is not clear, people do nothing. The most important thing when any crime is being carried out, wherever it is happening—whether that is on the Tube or wherever we see things happening—is for us as citizens to do something. That might be reporting it to the council, the local police or the Environment Agency, whose hotline is 0800 807060—I thank my officials for getting that through so that it is on the public record. The playbook is important. Once something has been reported, what does the local authority, the police or the EA do? What is the definition of “major site”? I have visited sites, including Watery Lane in Staffordshire, where two vanloads of fly-tipping was not classified as a major problem, and it fell to the local authority to clear it. People were locked in their homes physically unable to leave via the road—an absolutely extraordinary position for people to find themselves in. What is the playbook, what are the definitions and where do national agencies step in? The Environment Agency expects to fund the clearance efforts by making efficiencies in its operations, without impacting on or scaling back any other services. The EA is not funded to clear up waste sites nationally, however, and makes these types of decisions only in exceptional circumstances. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock asked about additional landfill tax revenue. The waste crime survey that the EA has carried out indicates that 20% of waste is handled illegally. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that 23% of landfill tax is evaded, contributing to an annual waste crime cost of roughly £1 billion a year, including a £150 million landfill tax gap, which is 23% of the theoretical liability—I hope that everyone can understand that. That £1 billion a year shows that this is big business. It is a profitable and lucrative business, and we are all paying. We are paying twice, because we are losing the £1 billion and then clearing up the waste, so it is a double whammy for us—it is maddening.

• 6 Jan 2026 · River Cherwell: Clearing Illegal Waste · Hansard source

  More

  My aim is not to spend further taxpayers’ money on crime; my aim is to stop it happening in the first place. All budget decisions are subject to the normal business planning, but we hope that, through our three-year spending review, we can give the Environment Agency a three-year or indicative settlement that will enable it to plan, rather than the annual process of, “Up this year, down next year,” so that there will be long-range line-of-sight planning. As I say, the EA is consulting at the moment on the additional extra revenue. If that goes through, there would be a funding uplift. I have the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade): we are happy to confirm that it is already possible to check the online database for permits, so that is good news there. I have mentioned the different reforms and I think I have answered all the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I am pretty much coming to the end of my speech. On steps taken since 11 December and his specific question about the rise in water level of up to two metres, equivalent to the peak recorded at Thrupp in November ’24, the waste is within a large floodplain that can store a substantial volume of water during heavy rain. The EA has carried out more detailed flood risk assessment to understand any changes in water levels due to the illegal waste and has determined that there will not be any increased flood risk to local properties. My understanding is that sandbags and a fence are there in order to protect the river. The EA has also carried out regular water quality sampling of the river to check for impacts of run-off or leaching and has found no indication of pollution. If any pollutants were found in the watercourse, the action would depend on the nature and type of the pollutants found. On fire risk at the site, EA officials have been working with the fire and rescue service, which is leading on monitoring the temperatures of the waste and planning appropriately. The fire risk was one of the main reasons that an exceptional decision was taken to progress works to clear the site entirely. Analysis on how the site would be cleared, including ecology surveys, has been carried out with partners and the Environment Agency to get contracts in place as soon as possible, but we need to follow legal process to ensure that the waste is disposed of correctly. The clearance timetable is being finalised and will shortly be published on the EngagementHQ website. As I said, we hope that clearance will begin in February. Early indications and scoping indicate that full clearance will take approximately six to nine months. Where possible, we are seeking to recover our costs from those responsible in accordance with the legislation and the “polluter pays” principle, and the EA is working with the economic crime unit to target the finances of waste criminals. That unit can freeze bank accounts, seize assets and investigate cases of money laundering linked to waste crime.

• 6 Jan 2026 · River Cherwell: Clearing Illegal Waste · Hansard source

  More

  I am in passionate agreement with the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure is everyone in the Chamber and watching at home. I would say, however, that big businesses use all available resources to protect their income. They are sophisticated businesses—some are registered companies—and they have their own ways of making life difficult for law enforcement. We are in a bit of a David and Goliath situation. They have been very good at doing that. This is a complex crime, and it takes a while to unravel. We continue to work with the Treasury on the best approach to fiscal policies to tackle and reduce waste crime. The joint unit for waste crime is a UK-wide partnership, working with the Environment Agency, HMRC, the National Crime Agency, the police and others. It shares intelligence, powers and resources to disrupt waste criminals. The unit, which was launched in 2024 and uses proceeds of crime action and asset freezes, has doubled in size thanks to our extra funding. Anyone with intelligence about waste crime can report it to Crimestoppers on 0800 555111. My message to our constituents around the country is that waste crime is an absolute top priority for the Government. My message to the waste criminals is we are coming for you and we are going to shut you down. My message to the legitimate waste operators is thank you for your work maintaining safe, healthy and clean environments in our towns and putting pride in our places. Let us all ensure that we work together to create a truly circular economy in which this sort of terrible crime is unthinkable and its perpetrators are put out of business. Question put and agreed to.

• 6 Jan 2026 · River Cherwell: Clearing Illegal Waste · Hansard source

  More

  It is lovely to be here with you again to celebrate the new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish you and all colleagues in the House a very happy new year. What a shame it is that we are starting it with the trash from last year. As we have just celebrated Christmas and the holiday period, we will have seen our bins and recycling facilities overflowing with the Christmas excesses. We have faith in our systems that when that is taken away, it is responsibly dealt with. I therefore thank the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for raising this important issue. I share his anger and the public’s anger about this serious crime and its impact. Waste crime blights our communities, as I know from my work as a constituency MP in Coventry. Waste criminals damage the environment and, in the worst cases, directly threaten our health, life and limb. These criminals also undermine legitimate businesses and deprive the Exchequer of tax income. That is why the Government are committed to tackling waste crime. We will crack down on the waste criminals and the organised crime groups who have moved into this lucrative space, and we will ensure that they are brought to justice. I confirm that the criminal investigation into the Kidlington site is moving forward apace. Environment Agency officials, working closely with the police, have taken samples of the waste materials on site for forensic examination. There is a lot we can divine from some of these materials as to where they originated from. Those forensic results will be available by the end of January. The Environment Agency is working closely alongside partners including Oxfordshire county council, the police and fire and rescue services as part of the site’s strategic co-ordinating group and tactical co-ordinating group. The strategic group has set the overall goals for this major incident, supporting the gold commander with advice, analysis and community links, while the tactical group implements those goals at the scene. The strategic group has local and operational expertise, and it has determined that the scale of the fire risk sets this case apart from the other illegal waste dumps in England. This location presents an overriding public imperative. That is why the Environment Agency took the exceptional decision to clear the waste and why it is working rapidly to implement a safe, systematic and focused clearance plan. It is important to stress that only two other sites have been cleared by the Environment Agency in the past five years: Hoad’s Wood, via a ministerial direction; and Twyford House in Stoke-on-Trent, where lots of flammable liquids were stored close to the west coast main line. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock will see some of the similarities there. The Environment Agency will continue to closely monitor the site while preparatory work takes place. It has informed me today that prep work will begin shortly and clearance of the waste is expected to start in February. Further timeline updates will follow from the Environment Agency. It is important that the site’s vast amount of waste is handled correctly and moved to the right facilities without causing damage to the environment. The Environment Agency is monitoring risks at the site and will respond promptly to any change in situation. It is important that people, whether members of the public or well-meaning journalists, do not enter the site. It is an environmental crime scene and climbing on the waste is dangerous. In doing so, people are putting themselves at risk and compromising the criminal investigation, which is a criminal offence in itself. We do not need to add extra problems to the very big one already there. There is now 24-hour surveillance in place. The Environment Agency’s approach and actions are always based on evidence, and with the containment and clearance, actions were taken in response to a changing risk level and the potential for a rise in the water levels. The Environment Agency was on site within days of receiving photographic evidence from a member of the public and immediately visited the site with the local authority and confirmed it as a high-risk illegal waste site. Over 80% of the waste on site was there before the Environment Agency visited on 2 July, so the vast majority happened before it was alerted. When further waste movements were reported in September, the EA swiftly obtained a restriction order in October. The current risk of waste entering the river is very low. A barrier has been installed at the site to prevent the waste from entering the river, to safeguard both the environment and public safety in the event of river levels rising or flooding. The Environment Agency has carried out water quality sampling of the River Cherwell to check for potential impacts of run-off or leaching from the waste. Having sampled upstream and downstream of the site, it has found no indication of pollution entering the Cherwell as a result of the waste. The clear-up of illegal waste sites by the Environment Agency should only be a last resort, undertaken in exceptional circumstances to protect the public and the environment. In accordance with the “polluter pays” principle, criminals who disregard the law, undercut legitimate businesses and blight communities and the environment must pay the penalty—not us as taxpayers. We do not wish to create a perverse incentive for some people to dump, or facilitate the dumping of, waste. It should be for polluters, not taxpayers, to pay the costs of clean-up. I acknowledge the huge frustrations about the time such an approach takes—I know that from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). In some cases, that can undermine public confidence or create a perception somehow that the matter is not taken seriously or tackled swiftly. As with any police investigation, there is no running commentary provided either by police, law enforcement or Ministers. I can confirm, though, that I am vigorously pursuing all avenues on this and other waste crime sites. We are committed to bearing down on the cynical waste criminals who damage our environment, harm businesses and blight our communities. I will go through each of the hon. Member’s questions. I request the patience of the House—Madam Deputy Speaker, feel free to cough if I go on too long. I believe we have until 7.30 pm, so strap in! The hon. Member asked how we are tackling the blight on the country caused by waste crime. We are pursuing a series of reforms that will have a lasting impact on reducing waste crime. We are bringing in reforms to the carrier, broker and dealer regimes, which will shrink the number of people who can handle waste. That is the first thing. We are changing the waste permit exemption regimes. At the moment, certain activities do not need a permit and we are shutting down those exemptions. We are also introducing digital waste tracking, which is coming in this year. These are things that I have done as a Minister that have been consulted on as far back as 2018 but have not been enacted by successive Governments. We think these three actions—this pincer movement, if you like—will be the most effective way to drive criminality away from the waste sector, because this is all about knowing the chain of custody for these materials. Alongside this, we have increased the Environment Agency’s budget for waste crime enforcement by over 50% this year to £15.6 million. This is the investigatory part of what the EA does, and it includes issues involving misdescribed waste, waste shipments and all the difficult business. This work is very time consuming and painstaking because it has to be done to a criminal standard of proof that will stand up in a court of law. I want to go into a bit more detail about this. These reforms were deprioritised and stalled, but under this Government they are being accelerated. Mandatory digital waste tracking will replace outdated methods for monitoring waste movements and unify fragmented processes. It will provide a single comprehensive view of waste types, waste quantities and waste destinations. The lack of digital record keeping in the waste industry is frequently exploited by organised criminals, who undercut legitimate businesses through mishandling waste, illegal exports and simple fly-tipping. Data in the new system will help regulators to check that waste is ending up at legitimate, licensed sites and enable the quicker investigation of illegal activity. This digital waste tracking system is being phased in this year, beginning with the introduction of a system for waste receiving sites—for example, landfills—and with planned expansion to other waste operators such as waste carriers in 2027, subject to further funding.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely not. This is a very new policy, and BNG remains a legal requirement. These changes are targeted and proportionate and have been consulted on, and what the hon. Gentleman omits to say is that we are introducing BNG into nationally significant infrastructure projects for the first time. On a net basis, we think the market will continue and thrive.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Our simpler recycling reforms are all about creating clean streams of recyclable material. I was delighted to see some of the investment that is going in when I opened a new chemical recycling facility for plastics in Amber Valley, which can produce food-grade plastics. I hope that much more investment is to come, because aluminium is infinitely recyclable.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hot news is that the Secretary of State has planted an oak tree there and I have planted an apple tree there, so I feel that as a Department, we have done our bit. It is a brilliant forest providing lots of different ecosystem services, from agroforestry to increasing access for local people and, critically, preventing flooding. The initial sites include Pucklechurch in Gloucestershire, and when it is completed, the forest will serve over 2.5 million residents, bringing trees much closer to where they live.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Extended Producer Responsibility: Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, I am sorry; I forgot to wish a happy Christmas to you, your staff, everyone in the Chamber and all the House staff who look after us so well. Extended producer responsibility moves recycling costs from taxpayers on to packaging producers, making businesses pay their fair share. In October 2024, the Government published a full assessment of the impact of the scheme. It supports systematic change and is part of our reforms, which will create 25,000 new jobs and see £10 billion of investment from the waste sector over the next 10 years.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Extended Producer Responsibility: Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  We have had some very good news on food inflation and the cost of living being reduced, so inflation is down. I am concerned that the hon. Member has some memory loss, because under the Conservatives a pub or bar closed every 14 hours. We are working closely with the industry to tackle concerns around the dual use of packaging, and we have held workshops with them. EPR fees only apply to drinks sold in bottles; they do not apply to pints of beer poured in pubs or wine sold by the glass, so I do hope that this will not stop the pubs in his constituency enjoying a festive Christmas.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Air Quality · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right; wood burners are an important way for some households to heat their homes. Our upcoming consultation will focus on tighter standards for new wood-burning appliances to help reduce health impacts.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Air Quality · Hansard source

  More

  Our future circular economy growth plan and interventions will seek to go beyond recycling and drive circularity in our waste streams, reducing the amount of waste that is sent for incineration and, crucially, to landfill. That is on top of the reforms we are delivering to simplify recycling for all households and businesses, including introducing food waste collections from next April and encouraging reduced and recyclable packaging.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Air Quality · Hansard source

  More

  Poor air quality harms health, and it does not affect all communities equally. Our new environmental improvement plan sets a new target to cut exposure to harmful particles by nearly one third by 2030. We will deliver that by modernising industrial permitting, consulting on tighter standards for new wood-burning appliances, streamlining the assessment of harmful particles in the planning system, and exploring options to reduce emissions from small industrial combustion plants.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his follow-up questions. Several colleagues have raised the issue of cost being calculated by weight and not by unit, but waste management costs are largely driven by weight. We have taken into account other factors that influence collection costs, including the estimated volume of each material in bins and collection vehicles. Glass is a heavy material with a low resale value. A unit of glass packaging costs more for a local authority to manage as waste than an item made up of more lightweight and high-value material. Our recycling assessment methodology changes are published on defra.gov.uk, so people can see the changes that we are proposing to bring in next year and how we are ramping up the fees payable for less recyclable packaging. Reuse and refill of packaging provides a real opportunity for economic growth and job creation. Earlier this year, GoUnpackaged produced economic modelling that made a compelling case for scaling up reuse in UK grocery retail. That work showed end-to-end system cost savings of up to £577 million a year, highlighting the economic viability of reuse in the UK. In response to that research, major grocery retailers have committed to working together to scale reusable packaging systems. Innovate UK has commissioned a scoping study to develop the blueprint for the first wave of this bold multi-retailer reuse scheme, so change will be coming in this sector pretty fast.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing the debate, and thank hon. Members from across the House who have made valuable contributions today. I am struck by the cross-party consensus. This is the first time we have welcomed a Reform MP—the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin)—to these discussions. Let us remember that these are the biggest changes to recycling policy since the landfill tax was introduced in 2002, under the last Labour Government. The changes were introduced with cross-party consensus. All parties support what this Government are trying to do. Indeed, the changes are the continuation of much of the policy of the previous Government, but there have been some important changes—we have certainly not done the seven bins that they proposed in the Environment Act 2021. EPR for packaging is the cornerstone of the recycling reforms. The reforms are designed to drive up the recycling rate to 55% over the next 10 years. The rate has languished at 42% since about 2015, despite what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said. The reforms will increase the quality and quantity of the recycling that local councils collect, support sustainable growth in the UK waste management and reprocessing sector, and reduce our reliance on materials imported from overseas. We have just come back from the conference of the parties in Belém. The negotiations galvanised all nations to take steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and our impact on the planet. Think globally, act locally—this is our local action. EPR moves recycling costs from us as taxpayers to the packaging producers. It works alongside other reforms to create systematic change. Simpler recycling in England will make recycling easier and more consistent. From 1 April, we will be able to recycle the same materials, including glass, whether at home, work or school. That will change the quality of the material streams to enable us to move to the much more circular economy that we all want to see.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make some progress, because otherwise we are never going to get through this. We have already provided £340 million to local councils in England alone, in particular to bring in food waste collection. That is particularly important, because it will allow us to create green gas and digestate, which we can use as fertiliser. We have to move away from the high-input fertilisers we use now. In this space, pEPR has an important role to play. It will divert packaging from residual waste into recycling. We estimate that the policy will save 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and about £189 million in emissions. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower spoke about growth. These reforms will support a thriving economy. As a result of these reforms, the waste management sector has committed to create 25,000 new jobs and invest more than £10 billion in the economy. Circular industries, keeping products and materials in circulation for as long as possible, now deliver £67 billion each year to our economy, and growth in this sector is more than double the rate of the overall UK economy. We have heard concerns, which I shall address quickly. We have met with glass producers—I can go through the list of the meetings. Basically, glass, due to its durability, is uniquely placed to take advantage of the generous financial incentives pEPR provides for reuse, because reusable containers only attract a fee the first time they are used. The Government recognise the value of the glass sector to the economy and have provided direct support to four of the major container glass manufacturers—Encirc is one of them—through the British industry supercharger scheme to ensure they remain competitive in a global market. I have some details here about how much they are going to save. Four glass companies are in receipt of this support and the package of measures is estimated to save eligible companies around £24 to £31 per MWh and reduce electricity costs so they are more closely aligned with their key international competitors. That is designed to reduce the risk of carbon leakage and help them to compete on the international stage. Yesterday’s Budget was mentioned. For pEPR, the Chancellor has announced consulting on proposed changes to the packaging recycling note scheme; consulting on options to drive transformation of local authority waste management and ensuring the accountability of pEPR funding. I have written to local authorities, as well as to PackUK, to reassert the need for this money to be spent on collecting packaging waste and not on cross-subsidising other areas of local authority spending; and appointing producer leadership of the scheme by March next year to give industry a central role in running the scheme. In the hospitality sector, we are publishing a national licensing policy framework, asking licensing authorities in England and Wales to consider the need to promote growth and deliver economic benefits in their decisions; we are appointing a retail and hospitality envoy to champion and deliver these changes; and we are making a commitment to explore changes to the planning framework to make it easier for hospitality businesses to grow. We heard a lot about the brilliant small businesses in MPs’ constituencies. For small businesses, we have some of the most generous exemptions of any scheme in the world. Businesses with a turnover below £2 million or that place less than 50 tonnes of packaging on the market are not obligated to pay pEPR fees or recycling obligations. The exemptions mean that 70% of UK businesses that supply packaging are not obligated under this scheme. We have also heard about issues around the bills and the paying of the bills. To help larger businesses that are obligated, PackUK is offering quarterly payment options to help with cash flow. PackUK will watch the thresholds carefully, knowing that raising them would push costs on to the remaining businesses as local authority collection costs stay the same. We have been listening to feedback so we have adapted our approach. This time last year, we were working tirelessly with the Environment Agency to bring so-called free riders into compliance—people who were putting glass on the market but had not actually registered with anybody anywhere. That increased the total tonnage of material registered in the scheme and enabled us to reduce the final fees, so the reduction of the base fees for 2025 actually went down by up to 38%, depending on the material. Let me talk quickly about steel. I met with the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association in September, and officials are following up on that. I am very conscious of the need, when the new arc furnace comes on stream, to make sure that we have a steady supply of scrap steel to enable it to stay in continuous production. We are also engaging with stakeholders to develop the approach to in-scope packaging. We are looking at household packaging that is sometimes disposed of in business waste—for example, beer and wine bottles can be disposed of in pub bins. We are looking at changing the recycling assessment methodology for next year to address complex composite packaging, which is really hard to recycle—particularly foil packages, which may have plastic on the inside and may contain paper. I talked to local authorities about that only this week, and we hope to bring forward a solution as soon as possible. [Christine Jardine in the Chair ]