Category: Environment

  • Tim Farron – 2026 Speech on Thames Water

    Tim Farron – 2026 Speech on Thames Water

    The speech made by Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for the Environment, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2026.

    I start by associating myself closely with the Secretary of State’s remarks about Jo Cox. It was a privilege to serve alongside her in this place, and we still miss her deeply.

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement and for the helpful briefing that I received earlier. Since Conservative privatisation more than 35 years ago, some £85 billion of billpayers’ money has flowed out like a torrent into the pockets of mostly overseas shareholders and executives paying themselves unearned bonuses. That money could and should have gone into cleaning up our waterways and modernising infrastructure. Instead, sewage was released into our lakes, rivers and seas for 1.8 million hours last year, and more than 100,000 of those were in the Thames region alone. Some 20% of our water leaks out of its pipes before it even reaches our homes. For Thames Water, the figure is even worse, with 25% of that water wasted.

    Now Thames Water’s investors are asking for more time for more opportunity to take money before they inevitably run. The Secretary of State is right, then, that the creditors’ offer is a disgrace. They get to keep making money, and Thames Water billpayers get to pay even more to keep them going, while getting the privilege of seeing long-overdue infrastructure improvements delayed for yet another decade. Thames Water is taking the mickey. The Liberal Democrats say, “No more, and no thanks.”

    It is clear that Thames Water has failed in its basic performance as a water company, and that gives the Secretary of State all the reason she needs to place it into special administration, so why is she not doing that instead? Her letter to Ofwat is, I am afraid, a sign of dreadful weakness. She has to beg an equally weak Ofwat to show a resolve that it institutionally lacks. Thames has failed in its performance, so just put it into special administration and migrate the company to a mutually owned model, where the billpayers own the company and call the shots. That way, investment will be made, sewage spills will stop and water leaks will cease. By doing that, she could begin the process whereby all our water companies are owned not by private equity, overseas investors or the sluggish state, but by the people. If she did that, she would win the favour of people from Witney to Windermere. Why does she not stop faffing about and do that instead?

    Emma Reynolds

    I thank the hon. Gentleman, I think, for his support for my statement today, although it was slightly half-hearted. He is right to say that there have been serious pollution incidents in different water companies, but especially in the Thames, and that is of grave concern to the public and to Thames Water’s customers in particular. I point out to him that there are two types of special administration regime. An insolvency SAR is an insolvency process and is for the company directors to determine. A performance SAR would be triggered if a company was in serious breach of its statutory duties or if the company breaches an enforcement order in a way that is so serious that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. The Government stand ready for all eventualities, including a SAR.

  • Toby Perkins – 2026 Speech on Thames Water

    Toby Perkins – 2026 Speech on Thames Water

    The speech made by Toby Perkins, the Labour MP for Chesterfield, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2026.

    Thames Water customers are paying the price for the incompetent regulation that allowed Macquarie to saddle the company with eye-watering debts at the same time as its environmental performance was so disgraceful. That debt ultimately led to shareholders writing the equity value down to zero. Those who bought the debt are now making this proposal. I entirely understand why the Secretary of State would not want customers to receive a service that was failing in its environmental responsibilities while they paid higher bills, but what assessment has she made as to whether Thames Water is a viable business? We have been told that this is the final offer from the company. Is there a viable business there that will deliver long-term investment within a reasonable cost window for billpayers? If there is not, at what point does public administration become inevitable?

    Emma Reynolds

    As I set out in my letter to the regulator, Ofwat, I am concerned that the proposal will mean delays to environmental improvements and to improvements to water infrastructure, with, as my hon. Friend rightly says, unfair cost being laid at the door of Thames Water customers. He asks whether it is a viable business and about next steps. This is a stage in the process where I have given my early views on this proposal. It is now for Ofwat to decide what to do next, and we wait to see what happens.

  • Victoria Atkins – 2026 Speech on Thames Water

    Victoria Atkins – 2026 Speech on Thames Water

    The speech made by Victoria Atkins, the Shadow Environment Secretary, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2026.

    First, I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in remembrance of her dear colleague Jo Cox. Her loss was felt across the House and across party political lines, and I send all of our very best wishes to her loved ones and friends.

    I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and for a briefing call on this announcement. As you know, I have been trying for months to coax the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box to explain major events within her portfolio, from the Government’s EU handover negotiations to their lack of support for farmers. Finally, she emerges into the light. We all assumed that it would be to announce progress towards resolving the many issues facing Thames Water and its customers; instead, it is to make a statement about a letter to the regulator. There is nothing new in this statement—no change in the situation of Thames Water, and still no certainty for billpayers.

    Thames Water has repeatedly failed its customers and the environment with a record of pollution, leakage and chronic under-investment. The latest figures lay this bare. The company is responsible for around a third of the nation’s worst pollution incidents, even as billpayers face steep increases in their bills. These are not abstract failures; untreated sewage has been poured into the rivers and chalk streams that local communities cherish, while customers are asked to pay more for less. The priority now must be a financial arrangement that keeps the company afloat and protects billpayers and taxpayers. While the Secretary of State’s Government are in chaos, paralysed by the Prime Minister’s weakness and the Mayor of Greater Manchester’s leadership ambitions, Thames Water continues to fail. If no deal is reached, Thames Water could collapse—again, at enormous cost to taxpayers.

    The Secretary of State has said that she does not want a scenario where customers

    “pick up the bill for the company’s failures”,

    but when the Conservatives tried to amend the Water (Special Measures) Act to prevent consumers from being on the hook in the event of a company going into special administration and tried to impose a lending ratio limit on water companies to prevent this situation from happening again, Labour voted it down. Why? I also remember that under the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), an investor pulled out of a previous rescue deal, partly due to political risk—in other words, the former Secretary of State had talked himself out of a deal. How is the current Secretary of State avoiding the failures of the now Secretary of State for Housing?

    There are those who are urging nationalisation, a word that is thrown around carelessly by Labour Back Benchers and by Reform—in fact, I think I heard it just now. None of them ever explains that nationalisation would be extremely expensive, potentially costing the taxpayer up to £20 billion. For those who are wondering what that means, it is roughly equivalent to the defence funding shortfall we have heard so much about in recent days. However, there are reasonable concerns about how Thames Water’s failures will be managed during the Government’s restructuring of the sector and the abolition of Ofwat, so can the Secretary of State please confirm that the existing penalty regime will not be downgraded or diluted, which has been briefed to the newspapers? What safeguards will be put in place to ensure Thames Water remains fully responsible for its environmental and operational failures? How will the Government ensure that billpayers are not left bearing the cost of past mismanagement, and have they offered or begun any process to recommend an alternative deal?

    Public trust in the water industry is already at rock bottom.

    Ministers have still not explained how investment in the sector will actually be paid for. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s predecessor had to admit that so-called private water industry investment is in reality paid for by higher bills, and the Secretary of State has repeated that today. Families already struggling with the cost of living should not become the safety net for a company that rewarded its executives while letting its infrastructure crumble. This is an important moment for the Government to show that they can balance financial stability with strong regulatory oversight and put accountability and the interests of billpayers and the environment at the heart of water reform. The Government must now deliver on the big promises they made during the election for the water sector.

    Emma Reynolds

    I am always happy to receive brownie points, Mr Speaker, so thank you for what you said.

    The shadow Secretary of State rightly says that untreated sewage has poured into our waterways, and it did, in the long years that her party was in government. They cut the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget and moved to an approach where water companies marked their own homework—the so-called self-monitoring approach. She has some brass neck in lecturing us when we saw a series of failures under her Government.

    We are here today, and we as a Government inherited record levels of pollution in our waterways, because of the failure by the Government of the right hon. Lady to see what was happening before their eyes. It was a failure of regulation, a failure of the regulators and a failure of the previous Government.

    I am proud of what we have achieved in the two short years that we have been in power. I am proud of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. When did the Conservatives ever cap polluting water bosses’ bonuses? Never. The right hon. Lady lectures me about amendments to our Act. Our Act did more in less than a year than her party did in 14 years to ensure a fairer deal for customers and a better deal for the environment.

    The right hon. Lady asks about nationalisation. I gently say that a special administration regime is not the same as nationalisation. [Interruption.] I am just clarifying for the House; I do not wish to have an exchange with her across the ballot box—sorry, the Dispatch Box—if I can possibly help it. The ballot box might be at some other point. There is a difference between nationalisation and a special administration regime. With nationalisation, the Government would be taking ownership of the company. With a special administration regime, the Government would finance a special administrator appointed by the courts to run the company.

    The right hon. Lady talks about public trust in our water sector being at record lows. All I can say is that we are clearing up her party’s mess. [Interruption.] It was under her Government that Thames Water was plunged into unmanageable levels of debt.

    Mr Speaker

    Order. Can I just say to the shadow Secretary of State that I want to hear the Secretary of State? We do not need a running commentary all the way through. I made sure that those on the Government Front Bench listened to her.

    Emma Reynolds

    I am not surprised that there are not many Opposition Back Benchers here, given the Conservatives’ terrible record on the water industry. In our clean water Bill, which we will introduce later in the Session, we will take forward a desperately needed, once-in-a-generation reform of the water sector to introduce a powerful single regulator that holds water companies to account.

  • Emma Reynolds – 2026 Statement on Thames Water

    Emma Reynolds – 2026 Statement on Thames Water

    The statement made by Emma Reynolds, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2026.

    Before I begin, let me say that this is a solemn day, as we remember our dear friend and colleague Jo Cox—I got to know her when we were living in Brussels in our 20s. I pay tribute to her formidable sister and their family for all their vital work to honour her memory.

    I will make a statement regarding the position of Thames Water and the proposed recapitalisation package under consideration. This Government were elected with a clear mandate to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, having inherited record levels of pollution incidents from water companies. Thames Water has underperformed for 15 years. It has regularly missed performance targets, it has unacceptable levels of serious pollution incidents, and the company is heavily indebted. This situation, which delivers poor outcomes for consumers and the environment, cannot continue.

    To fix this, over the course of the past two years, the company has been undertaking a recapitalisation process to seek vital long-term funding. The Government have been clear throughout that any investor will need to have a credible and robust turnaround plan, the implementation of which must be monitored by regulators and must restore the company’s financial resilience and operational performance. Ofwat, with the support of Government, have been in discussions with the London and Valley Water consortium—a group of Thames Water’s creditors—regarding the terms of a proposal. On 6 March, the consortium presented its proposal for Thames Water to both Ofwat and the Government. Ofwat has been continuing its discussions with the consortium since then, and I wanted to update the House on the next stage of the process.

    Ofwat is currently evaluating the consortium’s proposal and, as the independent regulator, is responsible for deciding whether to accept it. If Ofwat decides to accept the proposal, this would be subject to a public consultation and a court-sanctioned restructuring process. A recapitalisation process of this size is complex and will take time. As the Environment Secretary, I have several duties, set out in section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991. These include protecting consumers, securing the proper delivery of water and sewerage services, and ensuring that companies can finance those services and that statutory obligations are properly carried out. Today, I can confirm that I have sent a letter to Iain Coucher, Ofwat’s chair, outlining my early views on the proposal linked to my section 2 duties. These should not be taken as, nor do they constitute, a direction from Government to Ofwat.

    I do not believe that the current proposal goes far enough to protect customers and the environment. I have three particular concerns about the proposal: the unfair cost to customers, delays to vital infrastructure investments, and delays to environmental improvements. The 16 million Thames Water customers are front and centre of my consideration, and I am primarily worried about the impact on them. There is an expectation in the proposal that customers will fund—and therefore bear an undue cost for—investment in the company.

    In addition, I am not convinced about the proposal’s request to reduce performance standards, nor about the significant delay to vital infrastructure investments. This would mean delays to environmental improvements, particularly those related to waste-water treatments linked to statutory requirements, as well as to projects that are important for drinking water safety and supply. I am therefore concerned that the long-term resilience of the water and waste-water systems may not be adequately protected. The Government will always act in the national interest, and my priority as Environment Secretary is protecting customers and the environment. We will stand ready for all eventualities.

    I conclude by emphasising this Government’s commitment to turning around the water sector. In under two years, we have taken swift, decisive action. We have introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to raise standards, enforce accountability, and make pollution cover-ups a criminal offence. We have banned more than £4 million in bonuses for polluting water bosses; we have unlocked £104 billion of private investment to rebuild vital infrastructure; and we have commissioned Sir Jon Cunliffe to lead the most comprehensive independent review of the water sector since privatisation. Together, those steps have paved the way for the landmark clean water Bill announced in the King’s Speech. The Bill fulfils the commitments we set out in the water White Paper earlier this year and will deliver the fundamental reforms that are so desperately needed. This once-in-a-generation Bill will create a single powerful water regulator, moving away from a system where water companies mark their own homework by putting in place stronger, active supervision. This will strengthen water companies’ financial resilience and the long-term stability of the sector, with modernised economic regulation and new powers to drive turnaround where companies perform poorly.

    Additionally, the reforms will strengthen the consumer advocate, providing a more independent, authoritative voice that can challenge the system, drive improvements in outcomes and ensure that customers’ interests are put first. We will also improve water quality by cutting pollution at its source. Finally, we will avoid the situation we are discussing today happening again: our reforms will give the new regulator the powers to ensure water companies do not accumulate unmanageable levels of debt. More broadly, they will secure the long-term stability of the sector and ensure that companies are financially resilient. Put simply, our reforms will deliver better outcomes for customers and the environment.

    I commend this statement to the House.

  • Angela Eagle – 2026 Statement on Bovine TB Control in England

    Angela Eagle – 2026 Statement on Bovine TB Control in England

    The statement made by Angela Eagle, the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 10 June 2026.

    Today, I can inform the House of the publication of the co-designed bovine tuberculosis control strategy for England, developed and recommended by the steering group of the Bovine TB Partnership. It is now available on the Government-industry TB Hub website.

    We said in our manifesto that we would work with farmers and scientists on measures to eradicate bovine TB, and that is exactly what this process has done. The recommended strategy reflects the contribution of farmers, vets, scientists, industry representatives, and members of the public, brought together through several dedicated working groups and public dialogue workshops.

    I want to place on record my thanks to all those who took part, giving their time, their expertise, and their experience to help shape this work.

    Bovine TB remains one of the most difficult and persistent animal health challenges we face. We know the toll it takes, not only on cattle but on farmers, their families, vets, and rural communities. Too many have lived with that burden for too long.

    We must also recognise that bovine TB is a deeply contested and often polarised issue, particularly around wildlife and the role of badgers in disease spread. Let me be clear: the badger cull is ending, and no new licences can be issued under that policy, as we instead keep the focus on cattle while also protecting wildlife.

    When we announced the co-design of a new strategy in August 2024, this Government committed to end the badger cull by the end of this Parliament, and we have made good on that commitment.

    The 2025 culling season marked the final year of industry-led culling in England’s high risk and edge areas. Today, just one licence remains in Cumbria in the low risk area. However, no decision has been taken by Natural England to authorise culling under that licence in 2026, and I understand that the licence will be formally revoked by it, with a transition to badger vaccination now under way.

    Against that backdrop, I welcome the steering group’s recommended strategy. It sets out a clear direction, and what we now need to deliver: reducing TB in cattle, improving early detection, giving farmers and vets more agency to manage disease risk, strengthening biosecurity, and keeping a firm focus on the long-term prize of achieving officially bovine TB free status for England by 2038.

    This goal matters. It means lifting the shadow of this disease from farming families, restoring confidence for the future, growing the rural economy, and supporting profitable, resilient farm businesses.

    The publication today is an important step forward. It responds directly to the challenge set by Professor Sir Charles Godfray and his panel to increase the pace and urgency of our efforts. Crucially, it also sets a clear ambition to deploy a cattle vaccine and a DIVA—detect infected among vaccinated animals—test by 2030. A licence application for the vaccine has already been submitted to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

    The Government will now consider the steering group’s proposals carefully, and we will do so at pace. We will continue to work closely with farmers, vets, scientists and industry partners to move swiftly from recommendation to delivery, so that the momentum we have begun is not lost.

    Our intention is therefore to translate this strategy into action without delay, through a series of rolling three to five year delivery plans that ensure progress is sustained, transparent, and felt on the ground.

    I will update the House further in due course.

  • Angela Eagle – 2026 Statement on the  Sustainable Farming Incentive

    Angela Eagle – 2026 Statement on the Sustainable Farming Incentive

    The statement made by Angela Eagle, the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 11 June 2026.

    I am today updating the House on the sustainable farming incentive, one of this Government’s environmental land management schemes that pay farmers to manage their land in ways that improve nature, soil health and the environment, alongside supporting sustainable food production.

    Farmers in England will soon be able to apply for the improved SFI. Building on previous announcements, the revised scheme is designed to be simpler to access and better suited to modern farm businesses.

    The new SFI cuts unnecessary complexity while continuing to reward the practical actions that underpin productive, resilient farm businesses, from healthier soils and cleaner water to better habitats for bees, birds and other wildlife.

    We have worked with farmers and industry to shape the new scheme, backed by £240 million for new SFI agreements and building on around £560 million already committed to farmers delivering over 39,000 live SFI agreements.

    Applications are scheduled to open from 30 June 2026 for two groups: small farms and farms without an existing ELM revenue agreement. A second application window will open in September 2026, giving all farmers and land managers the opportunity to apply.

    The first application window opens with up to £60 million available, followed by a second window opening in September to all farms with the remainder of the £240 million budget available.

    The SFI offer in 2026 is an iterated version of the 2024 scheme. For continuity, the large majority of scheme features will remain as they were—the look and feel of SFI should be familiar to farmers who have applied previously. However, we have made some improvements to produce a simpler and more streamlined offer.

    In the previous version of SFI, a quarter of funding went to just 4% of farms. For SFI in 2026, we have introduced a new £100,000 annual agreement cap to help ensure funding reaches more farm businesses. Each farm business will be able to hold one SFI26 agreement, helping spread available funding more fairly across the sector.

    The new offer also contains several actions which encourage the reduced use of synthetic fertilisers in favour of more sustainable options, cutting input costs and boosting resilience to global market shocks such as the closure of the strait of Hormuz.

    The Government have listened to farmers who said they need time to understand the offer before applications open. We published “Get ready to apply” guidance on gov.uk on 6 May and near-final versions of the scheme guidance, terms and conditions, and actions last week on 2 June, allowing farmers to review the offer available and consider which actions may work best for their farm business. Final scheme guidance, developed with industry input, will be published next week.

    Alongside the new SFI offer, the Government are making at least £50 million available for new countryside stewardship higher tier agreements this year, helping farmers and land managers deliver targeted environmental improvements where they can have the greatest impact.

    The Government are also progressing the next group of landscape recovery projects expected to move into implementation this year, supporting large-scale action to restore rivers and habitats across England.

    Together, these schemes form a comprehensive package of support for farmers, helping to boost food production, strengthen farm resilience and drive nature recovery, while underpinning the UK’s long-term food security.

  • Emma Reynolds – 2026 Speech on Food Security

    Emma Reynolds – 2026 Speech on Food Security

    The speech made by Emma Reynolds, the Environment Secretary, at the British Ambassador’s Residence in Paris on 12 February 2026.

    Good evening, bonsoir, mesdames et messieurs. Distinguished guests, colleagues and friends. Thank you for welcoming me to Paris this evening.

    And thank you Andrew for that kind and rather cheesy introduction.

    Je suis ravie d’etre ici ce soir avec vous. Paris occupe une place toute particulière dans mon cœur. J’ai travaillé en France dans ma tendre jeunesse à l’âge 19 ans comme serveuse a la gare de Lyon Partdieu. J’en ai retenu deux choses essentielles: l’importance d’un service de qualité… et une passion toujours aussi intense pour le fromage, la charcuterie et le vin français.

    And in fact, when I reflect on my time living here in France I can see some similarities between being a waitress and being a politician – you’re working long hours, serving the people, and also, alas, dealing with complaints – but unfortunately, we politicians can’t blame the kitchen when things go wrong!

    This impressive residence – Hotel Charost – has a rich history. The Duke of Wellington bought it off Napoleon’s sister, but don’t worry; the money and indeed the gold Britain paid for it was used by the French emperor to finance his return from exile!

    And this residence has served for over 200 years as a place where British and French people have come together to discuss the issues of the moment and explore the opportunities ahead.

    That is exactly what I want to do this evening with you.

    Today has been a day full of rich conversations.

    I had the great pleasure of meeting my French counterpart, Minister Annie Genevard, to discuss the future of our farming sectors, international trade and the agreement that we are negotiating between the UK and the EU on sanitary and phytosanitary rules – un accord sur les normes sanitaires et phytosanitaires – which you can see why we shorten to “SPS agreement”.

    I have also had meetings with Ambassador Olivier Poivre D’Arvor to discuss our shared ocean priorities – from marine protected areas to the plastics treaty.

    And Ambassador Barbara Pompili and I covered the biodiversity agenda, including our joint work on biodiversity credits.

    What struck me throughout today’s meetings was a common thread: a shared commitment to high standards, practical cooperation, and the understanding that the challenges we face – from climate to food security to ocean health – do not respect borders. And that we can stand tall in the world, working together in partnership to solve these challenges.

    Why food security matters now

    And that reminded me of something I learnt from my many years working in Brussels.

    That the relationship between the United Kingdom and our European neighbours is not simply a matter of treaties and trade statistics, as important as they are. It is built on something deeper.

    We have shared values, shared culture and a shared history. And most importantly we have a shared future.

    As the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves said yesterday, Britain’s future is inextricably bound with Europe’s future. For economic reasons, for security, for resilience and for defence. Geography matters in our world today. None of the trade agreements the UK has done around the world are as important as our trade arrangements with the EU.

    That is why our Labour government committed to the British people that we would reset and deliver on the partnership with our European friends. And that is exactly what we are doing.

    Because this partnership, based on our shared values, matters even more in this uncertain world.

    War on our continent, with the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    Increasing geopolitical tensions.

    New biosecurity threats – plant and animal diseases that do not respect borders.

    All these challenges demand greater cooperation, not isolation.

    And climate change is placing unprecedented pressure on food systems, biodiversity, and the natural resources we all depend upon.

    This is not a distant threat. Droughts, floods, extreme weather events – are already disrupting harvests, straining supply chains, and driving up costs for farmers and consumers alike.

    Food security has direct consequences for the safety and wellbeing of our populations. In this new geopolitical reality, it is inseparable from national security.

    That is why food security has become a strategic priority for governments across Europe – and why the strength of our relationships with our closest partners matters more than ever.

    For our shared security. And our shared prosperity.

    UK-France food systems are deeply connected

    The English Channel, la Manche, is one of Europe’s most important food corridors.

    Every day, high-value, time-sensitive goods cross in both directions, serving consumers and supporting producers on both sides.

    France exports over €7 billion euros in agri-food products to the UK each year.

    In return the UK exports over €3 billion euros of such produce to France.

    French produce on British tables; British products in French markets.

    Indeed, some of the finest French produce can be found in some of the best French restaurants – many of which are of course in London.

    French wine, cheese, chocolate and croissants are fantastically popular back home amongst the French expats but also les roast bifs.

    I must confess a particular weakness for a good Côtes du Rhône or indeed Burgundy.

    I read of President Macron’s visit to the trade show, Wine Paris, just this week, championing French producers and seeking new markets.

    We share that instinct: to support our agricultural sectors, defend quality, and find partners who value what we grow and make.

    And I’m sure that many of you have your own British favourites. I know that British salmon, whisky and lamb are valued in French restaurants and markets. Some of you might even drink a morning cup of tea.

    These flows of agri-food products represent millions of meals, thousands of livelihoods, and generations of trade built on trust. And something more, that the French know better than anyone else, food is culture.

    What crosses the Channel reflects not just commerce, but connection.

    Our supply chains are not national systems operating in parallel. They are integrated networks.

    The UK’s food security benefits when France and the wider EU are thriving. French resilience benefits when UK production and supply are stable.

    SPS agreement benefits

    This brings me to the agreement we are working towards with the EU.

    The SPS agreement is designed to restore the Channel corridor to its full potential.

    Exports of British farm products to the EU have dropped by a fifth in the five years since Brexit. And I heard in a roundtable this afternoon with French producers that they have had similar challenges exporting to the UK.

    That’s not good for farmers and consumers on both sides of the channel.

    This agreement will change that.

    It will make trade faster, easier, and cheaper.

    Businesses large and small will benefit from less time and money spent on complex paperwork at the border.

    Consumers will have greater access to the high-quality products they value.

    The agreement will mean over €300 million euros worth of cheese entering the UK from France would no longer need to be checked at the border and can reach customers more quickly.

    It also means that over €500 million euros worth of UK fish arriving in France each year can be sold faster and more reliably.

    Frictionless trade, efficient borders, open supply chains – these directly support farmer incomes, consumer prices, and shared resilience.

    The mutual benefits are significant.

    They tie the UK and EU together on food security and improve movement and reliability on both sides of the Channel.

    Shared high standards

    There is sometimes a temptation, when discussing trade agreements, to suggest that standards must be traded off against supply.

    My government rejects that view.

    The UK and EU are natural allies in upholding high standards of animal welfare and environmental protection – and in championing these principles internationally, protecting the integrity of our food systems while leading the global transition to sustainable agriculture.

    High standards are not a barrier to trade. They are what makes trade valuable. They are what consumers trust. And they are what will distinguish European agriculture in an increasingly uncertain world.

    Sustainable farming and food security

    The climate crisis means we cannot secure our food systems simply by producing more. We must produce food differently.

    Sustainable farming is not a constraint on food security – it is the foundation of it. Soil health, water management, biodiversity, reduced emissions – these are not luxuries. They are the conditions on which productive agriculture depends.

    Farmers who protect and restore their land are not just producing food. They are safeguarding the capacity to produce food for generations to come.

    As G7 and G20 members, the UK and France have both the platform and the obligation to drive global action on climate – in our food systems but also in energy, trade, and the protection of natural ecosystems worldwide.

    Last week I addressed scientists and policymakers gathered in Manchester for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

    At that gathering, I delivered remarks on behalf of His Majesty the King, who spoke of nature as “the ultimate foundation of our societies and, critically, our economy” – and of the urgent need to reverse biodiversity loss.

    His Majesty is right. Together we will demonstrate that protecting and restoring nature isn’t just an environmental necessity, it is essential for our security, our economy, and our future.

    The King also highlighted the International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits, jointly established by the UK and French governments, as a model for how nature finance can channel investment towards nature across the world.

    That partnership – practical, innovative, and rooted in shared values – extends to the work ahead.

    And tomorrow I look forward to meeting Environment Minister Monique Barbut to discuss how we can work together through France’s G7 presidency this year and beyond – and demonstrate what multilateralism can deliver.

    Today has been a reminder of why these partnerships matter – not just in policy documents, but in practice.

    The conversations I’ve had with my French colleagues and counterparts, have reinforced my belief that the UK and France are ready to write the next chapter together.

    Because the challenges we face – climate change, geopolitical instability, pressures on our food systems – are not challenges any country can meet in splendid isolation.

    They demand cooperation between trusted partners who share not just interests, but values.

    That is what the UK and France have built together.

    Not a relationship of convenience, but one grounded in shared history, mutual respect, and a common vision for the future.

    In the months ahead, as we work to finalise the SPS agreement and deepen our cooperation, I am confident we will demonstrate what this partnership can achieve – not just for our two countries, but as a model for how neighbours can work together in an uncertain world.

    And in the spirit of partnership, I should warn you: the sparkling wine you have been drinking is produced by the finest English vineyards! But don’t worry – le vin rouge est francais!

    The entente may be tested, but I trust it will remain cordiale.

    But in all seriousness, I hope you’ll join me in toasting the friendship between our nations – past, present, and future.

    À notre amitié – d’hier, d’aujourd’hui et de demain.

    Merci.

  • Emma Reynolds – 2026 Speech at the Oxford Farming Conference

    Emma Reynolds – 2026 Speech at the Oxford Farming Conference

    The speech made by Emma Reynolds, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 8 January 2026.

    Good morning,

    It’s a real pleasure to be here at my first Oxford Farming Conference.

    This conference has a remarkable history – 90 years of new ideas being tested, challenges being confronted, and the future of British farming being shaped.

    Farmers are the custodians of 70% of England’s land and provide 65% of the food we eat.

    You are at the heart of our national life – for what you produce, the communities you sustain, and the landscapes and heritage you protect.

    I live in a rural area and I represent a rural constituency with 89 farms. So I came to this role with an understanding of the challenges you face – and the opportunities ahead.

    One of my first conversations as Secretary of State was with the NFU’s President, Tom Bradshaw. Since then, I’ve had frequent discussions with him and stakeholders from across the sector – hearing about your concerns, your frustrations, and your ambitions.

    And every one of those conversations has deepened my respect for what you do.

    For your resilience in the face of increasingly unpredictable weather and volatile markets.

    For your innovation in finding new ways to farm productively and sustainably in a changing climate.

    And for your determination to build businesses you can pass on to the next generation.

    Speaking of your determination, I also want to take this opportunity to thank farmers who have been out clearing roads and helping to protect their local communities in the recent snow.

    You step up when your communities need you and you are the heart of rural Britain.

    Today I’m going to cover a lot of ground, but there are 3 commitments that run throughout my speech.

    First, that this government is serious about partnership with your sector.

    Second, that we’re committed to giving you clarity and stability.

    Third, that we’re backing you to grow with confidence and resilience.

    Let me start with the announcement we made just before Christmas.

    Since starting this role in September, I’ve listened to farmers and stakeholders about your concerns on proposed changes to inheritance tax.

    You told me the threshold was too low. You told me it would hit small family farms – the very farms we want to protect.

    Farms that have been in families for generations. Farms you understandably want to pass on to your children.

    We have listened and we are making changes – increasing the inheritance tax threshold for Agricultural and Business Property Relief from £1 million to £2.5 million pounds.

    That means couples can pass on up to £5 million pounds without paying inheritance tax on their assets. That’s on top of the existing allowances such as the nil-rate band.

    Around 85% of estates claiming APR, including those also claiming BPR, will pay no more inheritance tax.

    Good governments listen. And when they hear real concerns, they act.

    That’s exactly what we’ve done and now we can move forward together.

    That commitment to partnership is why we asked Baroness Minette Batters to lead an independent review into farming profitability.

    We are working through all of her recommendations and we will set out a more detailed response in our 25 year Farming Roadmap, built with you, later this year.

    However, we have issued our initial, high-level response.

    She underlined the need for government to work in close partnership with the agriculture and food industry.

    I completely agree.

    So we will set up a Farming and Food Partnership Board to bring together the whole agri-food system – farmers, food processors, retailers and finance.

    Because food security isn’t just about what happens on the farm. It’s about the whole chain – from farm to fork.

    I will chair this new Board with my excellent colleague, the Farming Minister, Angela Eagle, as my deputy.

    Farmers will have a seat at the table when policy is developed. And it is your voice that will shape what government does.

    It also means that government can ask things of you – and of the wider food system.

    When we open new export markets, we need the industry ready to seize them.

    When consumers want more British produce, we need retailers committed to stocking it.

    When there’s an opportunity to grow, we need the whole system pulling in the same direction.

    That’s what partnership means. Not just listening but acting together.

    And it won’t be a one-size-fits-all approach.

    Different parts of our food system face different challenges and opportunities.

    We will develop sector plans – initially with horticulture and then with poultry. This will be followed by other sectors – where there’s real scope to grow more of our own food.

    Because when British farming thrives, consumers benefit – with affordable, high-quality food on their tables.

    Alongside creating the partnership board and sector plans, we have also announced planning reform to unlock food and farming infrastructure.

    Stepping up action on supply chain fairness.

    Bringing together farmers and financial institutions to tackle barriers to private investment.

    And dedicated trade missions to showcase British food and drink overseas.

    However, it’s not just the relationship between government and farmers that matters – it’s farmers’ relationships with one another.

    The Batters review highlights that collaboration between farmers and indeed with experts will be key to closing the productivity gap and improving farm profitability.

    So today I’m pleased to announce our new Farmer Collaboration Fund of £30 million pounds, over 3 years.

    We want to make it easier for farmers to share knowledge with each other. To make best practice common practice.

    Across the country, farmers are already coming together – sharing that best practice, managing rivers that cross boundaries, and accessing private investment that would otherwise be out of reach.

    We want to support these existing networks and help get new ones off the ground.

    Our vision is to help farmers improve their productivity and profitability; and to collaborate on delivering positive environmental change together.

    After all, the best ideas in farming don’t come from Whitehall. They come from farmers. You know your industry better than anyone else.

    There’s no such thing as a typical farm.

    A dairy farm faces different challenges to a horticultural business. A hill farmer in Cumbria operates differently to an arable farmer in East Anglia.

    Our approach must recognise this diversity.

    And nowhere is that more important than in our uplands.

    They provide over 70% of our drinking water, support rural livelihoods and are home to precious wildlife and beautiful landscapes.

    And they produce food in some of the most challenging conditions anywhere in the country.

    For too long, upland communities have faced a perfect storm. Economic fragility. Social isolation. Environmental pressures.

    We want to change that.

    Over the last year, we’ve started working with social entrepreneur Dr Hilary Cottam on a new approach.

    An approach where we get out on the ground and talk directly to upland communities.

    So today, I’m announcing that Dr Cottam and Defra will start a long-term partnership with communities in Dartmoor, then Cumbria.

    The overall vision is to develop a place-based approach for what these communities need; co-designing solutions to specific problems.

    By developing a common understanding of how land can be best used for food production and the public good.

    It’s vital we build governance that reflects the local challenges and opportunities of these areas.

    Together we will look at pooling public, private and third sector resources. Laying the foundations for new income streams. And creating the skills and networks that let communities lead their own transformation.

    That’s the most important thing here, that communities lead change from the ground up.

    During our time with upland communities, we also heard how much farmers value our Farming in Protected Landscapes programme.

    Today I’m pleased to announce we’re extending the programme for another three years – with £30 million pounds in funding next year.

    The programme has partnership at its core. It brings farmers, protected landscape organisations and communities together to deliver change at a scale no single holding could achieve alone.

    This extension means more farmers can deliver for wildlife, climate and their communities in England’s National Parks and National Landscapes.

    Productive farms at the heart of thriving rural areas.

    And that partnership approach continues with the new SFI offer launching this year.

    You’ve told me, loud and clear, that you need clarity, stability and predictability.

    I have a background in business. So I know how important margins, risk, and long-term investment are to you. Running a farm means balancing immediate pressures with decisions that will play out over decades.

    To make those decisions, you need to know where you stand.

    Protecting the environmental foundations of farming isn’t separate from profitability. It’s essential to it.

    Because without healthy land, there is no food. And without profitable farms, there are no farmers to produce it.

    Healthy soil. Clean water. Thriving pollinators. These aren’t nice to haves. They’re business fundamentals, environmental necessities and the foundations of our food security.

    And with more than 50,000 farm businesses already in environmental land management schemes, many of you clearly agree.

    But I’ve heard your frustrations. The SFI scheme became too complex. The unexpected closure last year damaged trust and confidence. And too much of the available funding was being absorbed by bigger farms.

    So we’re making three changes to fix that.

    First: we’re making it simpler and more focused.

    90% of spending currently goes on fewer than 40 of the 102 actions available.

    So we’re streamlining it. Fewer actions. Less complexity. Easier to apply.

    You’ll still have plenty of choice – but this government recognises SFI must work alongside food production not displace it.

    So we will limit how much land can be put into certain actions and review payment rates for others.

    These changes will make funding go further, allowing more people to benefit from agreements.

    Second: we’re improving fairness and accessibility.

    Right now, a quarter of the money goes to just 4% of farms.

    How can that be fair?

    We want to see farmers helping nature thrive everywhere, not just in a few places.

    So, we’re considering ways to address this such as an agreement value cap.

    This will help us meet our ambitious Environmental Improvement Plan target to double the number of farms delivering for wildlife.

    I’ve heard you say that you need planning certainty.

    I know many of you will have Environmental Land Management agreements expiring later this year.

    So I can confirm today, that we will open two SFI application windows this year.

    An initial window from June for small farms, and also those without existing Environmental Land Management agreements.

    Then a further window from September for all farms.

    Third: we’re going to provide certainty and transparency.

    From day one, I’ve heard loud and clear how important it is for you to plan for the future.

    I recognise that mistakes were made in the past, and that’s why I acted quickly – extending Countryside Stewardship Mid-Tier agreements and opening applications for the new and improved Higher-Tier offer.

    I am determined to provide you with that same stability going forward.

    So we will publish full scheme details before the first window opens and set clear budgets for each window – just like with the Capital Grants offer last year.

    There will be no more sudden unexpected closures.

    We’ll give you regular updates so you know when a window is close to being fully subscribed.

    Together, we will work with you to get the detail of these three changes right to deliver an SFI that is simpler, fairer, and more stable.

    An SFI shaped with you, that works for you.

    Once these changes are in place, the main design of SFI will be stabilised for the rest of this Parliament. So you know what to expect in the years to come.

    Because growth in farming depends upon solid environmental foundations.

    And British farming is a key growth sector – one we are backing for the long term.

    I’ve met farmers who want to build. Farmers who want to export. Farmers who want to invest in new technology.

    Too often, you’ve been held back by bureaucracy. Our government is changing that.

    I’ve heard from many of you that the planning system has stopped you building the vital infrastructure you need.

    That’s why last month, we launched a consultation on planning changes to make it easier to build on-farm reservoirs, greenhouses, polytunnels, and farm shops – so you are free to diversify, adapt and grow.

    Planning should enable ambition, not stifle it.

    But your ambitions don’t stop at the farm gate. Many of you want to reach new customers – not just here, but abroad.

    We’re opening doors to new markets by promoting British agriculture in trade deals with India, the US and Korea.

    Our deal with the EU on food standards will slash red tape and costs, improving access to the EU market.

    And our network of global agri-food attachés has unlocked export deals worth over £125 million pounds in the last year alone.

    We’re also backing the technology that will define the next generation of British farming – precision agriculture, new breeding techniques, and smarter use of data.

    And as this year’s OFC report rightly states, “farming has always evolved” and your “ability to innovate, adapt and be resilient remains your greatest asset”.

    And we will support you with that resilience.

    You know better than anyone how quickly extreme weather and disease can overturn months of work.

    That’s why we’re investing a record £10.5 billion pounds in flood defences and transforming our animal disease prevention capability through a new National Biosecurity Centre.

    The growth opportunities for British farming are significant. And we are backing you to seize them.

    So let me finish where I began.

    Partnership. We will work with you, not impose on you. Through our new Farming and Food Partnership Board. Through peer-to-peer networks. Through community-led change. And through engagement on the detailed changes to SFI.

    Clarity and stability. You will have the certainty you need to plan. Clear budgets. Clear timelines. And a clear Farming Roadmap for the future.

    Growth built on strong foundations. Trade deals that open new markets. Planning reforms that cut through barriers. Investment that backs your ambition.

    And most importantly, profitable farming and a thriving environment – not as a trade-off, but as two sides of the same coin.

    These are my commitments to you.

    The foundation for the bright future we are building together.

    That’s what modern British agriculture looks like.

    Productive. Profitable. Sustainable.

    Thank you.

  • Emma Reynolds – 2026 Statement on the Government’s Animal Welfare Strategy

    Emma Reynolds – 2026 Statement on the Government’s Animal Welfare Strategy

    The statement made by Emma Reynolds, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 6 January 2026.

    We are a nation of animal lovers. People across the country care deeply for animals, and the UK has a proud history of being pioneers when it comes to ensuring the very best for them. This Government are committed to safeguarding the welfare of animals for the long term, and we are changing how we will deliver the improvements needed to achieve the most ambitious reforms to animal welfare in a generation.

    On 22 December, the Government published our new animal welfare strategy. This strategy sets out the UK Government’s priorities for England, focusing on the changes and improvements we aim to achieve by 2030.

    The strategy is a comprehensive package of reforms that will improve the lives of millions of animals across the UK at home, on farm and in the wild.

    We set out how we will deliver our manifesto pledges to ban trail hunting and the use of snare traps, and to end puppy farming and puppy smuggling. We are giving farm animals greater freedom and dignity and protecting our wildlife.

    By improving animal welfare standards, we are supporting healthier, more productive livestock that delivers better outcomes for farmers, farm profitability, food security and the high welfare standards that British consumers expect.

    The animal welfare strategy builds on this Government’s proven track record in delivering reforms for animals. This includes introducing new world-leading standards for zoos earlier this year and supporting the passage of the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 and the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025.

    In November last year, we published a strategy on replacing animals in science, which set out how we would partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing.

    Rather than piecemeal legislation, we will take a more strategic approach—one that targets intervention where it is most needed. This means tighter regulation where standards are weakest, effective enforcement, and working with the sector to provide animal keepers and owners with additional support where they need it.

    This animal welfare strategy has been developed in conjunction with key stakeholders including representatives of the companion, wild companion, wild animal, and farming sectors along with non-governmental organisations, and those involved in enforcement. We have held roundtable discussions on priorities while working to understand the underlying issues that lead to poor welfare. We also received input from other interested parties.

    The Government recognise that each sector and species of animal has its own needs and challenges that must be considered to ensure good welfare. As such, different approaches are required, balancing priorities, interventions, legislation and roles for different organisations.

    Key commitments in the strategy include:

    We are ending puppy farming by consulting on reforming dog breeding practices to improve health and welfare and move away from practices that lead to poor welfare and unwell animals.

    We will consider the introduction of new licences for domestic rescue and rehoming organisations to ensure rescues have the right checks in place.

    We are promoting responsible dog ownership to protect public safety, and are looking forward to seeing the recommendations from the responsible dog ownership taskforce in due course.

    We will consult on a ban on the use of electric shock collars due to the possible harm these devices cause to our pets.

    As set out in our manifesto, we will ban trail hunting and will consult shortly on how to deliver this ban.

    We will end the use of snare traps because they cause suffering to animals and can catch animals that they were not meant to, including pets and protected wildlife.

    We will consider how to introduce a close season for hares which should reduce the number of adult hares being shot in the breeding season, meaning that fewer young hares are left motherless and vulnerable to starvation and predation.

    We will consult on moving away from confinement systems such as colony cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs so that animals can express their normal behaviours.

    We will improve welfare for pigs at the time of killing by phasing out the use of CO2 gas stunning for pigs, which causes pain and distress, subject to a consultation.

    We will introduce humane slaughter requirements for farmed fish.

    We will work with industry to promote the use of slow growing meat chicken breeds.

    We will form a fur working group of both industry experts and stakeholders who support restrictions on the trade in fur to help us explore options for addressing concerns in this area.

    We will begin by launching two public consultations in January, on the use of cages for laying hens, pullets and breeder layers, and on lamb castration and tail docking, as the first step toward advancing these ambitious animal welfare reforms.

    Our vision is simple: we want as many animals as possible to have the highest welfare standards at every stage of their life. Together with industry, non-governmental organisations and individuals, this Government will deliver the most ambitious reforms for animal welfare in a generation, creating a legacy we can all be proud of.

  • Mary Creagh – 2026 Speech on Clearing Illegal Waste from the River Cherwell

    Mary Creagh – 2026 Speech on Clearing Illegal Waste from the River Cherwell

    The speech made by Mary Creagh, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 6 January 2026.

    It is lovely to be here with you again to celebrate the new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish you and all colleagues in the House a very happy new year. What a shame it is that we are starting it with the trash from last year.

    As we have just celebrated Christmas and the holiday period, we will have seen our bins and recycling facilities overflowing with the Christmas excesses. We have faith in our systems that when that is taken away, it is responsibly dealt with. I therefore thank the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for raising this important issue. I share his anger and the public’s anger about this serious crime and its impact.

    Waste crime blights our communities, as I know from my work as a constituency MP in Coventry. Waste criminals damage the environment and, in the worst cases, directly threaten our health, life and limb. These criminals also undermine legitimate businesses and deprive the Exchequer of tax income. That is why the Government are committed to tackling waste crime. We will crack down on the waste criminals and the organised crime groups who have moved into this lucrative space, and we will ensure that they are brought to justice.

    I confirm that the criminal investigation into the Kidlington site is moving forward apace. Environment Agency officials, working closely with the police, have taken samples of the waste materials on site for forensic examination. There is a lot we can divine from some of these materials as to where they originated from. Those forensic results will be available by the end of January.

    The Environment Agency is working closely alongside partners including Oxfordshire county council, the police and fire and rescue services as part of the site’s strategic co-ordinating group and tactical co-ordinating group. The strategic group has set the overall goals for this major incident, supporting the gold commander with advice, analysis and community links, while the tactical group implements those goals at the scene. The strategic group has local and operational expertise, and it has determined that the scale of the fire risk sets this case apart from the other illegal waste dumps in England.

    This location presents an overriding public imperative. That is why the Environment Agency took the exceptional decision to clear the waste and why it is working rapidly to implement a safe, systematic and focused clearance plan. It is important to stress that only two other sites have been cleared by the Environment Agency in the past five years: Hoad’s Wood, via a ministerial direction; and Twyford House in Stoke-on-Trent, where lots of flammable liquids were stored close to the west coast main line. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock will see some of the similarities there.

    The Environment Agency will continue to closely monitor the site while preparatory work takes place. It has informed me today that prep work will begin shortly and clearance of the waste is expected to start in February. Further timeline updates will follow from the Environment Agency. It is important that the site’s vast amount of waste is handled correctly and moved to the right facilities without causing damage to the environment. The Environment Agency is monitoring risks at the site and will respond promptly to any change in situation.

    It is important that people, whether members of the public or well-meaning journalists, do not enter the site. It is an environmental crime scene and climbing on the waste is dangerous. In doing so, people are putting themselves at risk and compromising the criminal investigation, which is a criminal offence in itself. We do not need to add extra problems to the very big one already there. There is now 24-hour surveillance in place.

    The Environment Agency’s approach and actions are always based on evidence, and with the containment and clearance, actions were taken in response to a changing risk level and the potential for a rise in the water levels. The Environment Agency was on site within days of receiving photographic evidence from a member of the public and immediately visited the site with the local authority and confirmed it as a high-risk illegal waste site. Over 80% of the waste on site was there before the Environment Agency visited on 2 July, so the vast majority happened before it was alerted. When further waste movements were reported in September, the EA swiftly obtained a restriction order in October.

    The current risk of waste entering the river is very low. A barrier has been installed at the site to prevent the waste from entering the river, to safeguard both the environment and public safety in the event of river levels rising or flooding. The Environment Agency has carried out water quality sampling of the River Cherwell to check for potential impacts of run-off or leaching from the waste. Having sampled upstream and downstream of the site, it has found no indication of pollution entering the Cherwell as a result of the waste.

    The clear-up of illegal waste sites by the Environment Agency should only be a last resort, undertaken in exceptional circumstances to protect the public and the environment. In accordance with the “polluter pays” principle, criminals who disregard the law, undercut legitimate businesses and blight communities and the environment must pay the penalty—not us as taxpayers. We do not wish to create a perverse incentive for some people to dump, or facilitate the dumping of, waste. It should be for polluters, not taxpayers, to pay the costs of clean-up.

    I acknowledge the huge frustrations about the time such an approach takes—I know that from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). In some cases, that can undermine public confidence or create a perception somehow that the matter is not taken seriously or tackled swiftly. As with any police investigation, there is no running commentary provided either by police, law enforcement or Ministers. I can confirm, though, that I am vigorously pursuing all avenues on this and other waste crime sites. We are committed to bearing down on the cynical waste criminals who damage our environment, harm businesses and blight our communities.

    I will go through each of the hon. Member’s questions. I request the patience of the House—Madam Deputy Speaker, feel free to cough if I go on too long. I believe we have until 7.30 pm, so strap in! The hon. Member asked how we are tackling the blight on the country caused by waste crime. We are pursuing a series of reforms that will have a lasting impact on reducing waste crime. We are bringing in reforms to the carrier, broker and dealer regimes, which will shrink the number of people who can handle waste. That is the first thing. We are changing the waste permit exemption regimes. At the moment, certain activities do not need a permit and we are shutting down those exemptions. We are also introducing digital waste tracking, which is coming in this year. These are things that I have done as a Minister that have been consulted on as far back as 2018 but have not been enacted by successive Governments. We think these three actions—this pincer movement, if you like—will be the most effective way to drive criminality away from the waste sector, because this is all about knowing the chain of custody for these materials.

    Alongside this, we have increased the Environment Agency’s budget for waste crime enforcement by over 50% this year to £15.6 million. This is the investigatory part of what the EA does, and it includes issues involving misdescribed waste, waste shipments and all the difficult business. This work is very time consuming and painstaking because it has to be done to a criminal standard of proof that will stand up in a court of law. I want to go into a bit more detail about this. These reforms were deprioritised and stalled, but under this Government they are being accelerated.

    Mandatory digital waste tracking will replace outdated methods for monitoring waste movements and unify fragmented processes. It will provide a single comprehensive view of waste types, waste quantities and waste destinations. The lack of digital record keeping in the waste industry is frequently exploited by organised criminals, who undercut legitimate businesses through mishandling waste, illegal exports and simple fly-tipping. Data in the new system will help regulators to check that waste is ending up at legitimate, licensed sites and enable the quicker investigation of illegal activity. This digital waste tracking system is being phased in this year, beginning with the introduction of a system for waste receiving sites—for example, landfills—and with planned expansion to other waste operators such as waste carriers in 2027, subject to further funding.

    Adam Jogee

    I am grateful to the Minister for sharing with the House this important step forward. We are talking about these issues going back to 2018, and it just worries me that if this had been done before, some of the issues that I have hassled her about in relation to Walleys Quarry since I was elected to this place in July 2024 could have been dealt with a lot sooner. This raises many questions about the impact on my constituents back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme under the previous Government, who were clearly missing in action. We can discuss this further outside this House.

    Mary Creagh

    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s assiduousness on the issue of Walleys Quarry. That site is also now being run by the Environment Agency, and the risk of odour that his constituents were really grievously suffering is now extremely low, but that has come at a cost, as he rightly says.

    This is nothing new. When there is a problem and no action is taken and no new policy is created, these illegal businesses think, “Well, it’s a victimless crime, so I can carry on making money.” Then they tell their friends and, guess what, soon many flowers are blooming. But they are the wrong sort of flowers, and this creates incentives. Then of course, the legitimate businesses are like, “Hang on, why am I paying all these fees if all I need to do is buy a field, dig it up and dump stuff in it?” This creates disincentives for legitimate operators as well. I am only too aware of this. It was starting post-2016 when the then Government were focused on leaving the EU and the large international issues. I was chairing the Environmental Audit Committee at the time and I was always worried about what was going to happen to waste, including chemical waste, once we put up a border with our nearest neighbours.

    Secondly, we will reform waste management and transport. Instead of the current light-touch registration system, it will now be a permitted system. We will move on from a system that was so lax that people were able to sign up Oscar the dead dog to be a waste carrier. Activists were doing that back in 2018-19, so we have known about these problems. Anyone can falsify a bit of paper. We will introduce tougher background checks for operators and tougher penalties for those who break the law.

    We will also require vehicles that transport waste—the man with the van—to display their permit numbers on their vehicles and on their advertising, so service users can be reassured that their waste is being handled by an accredited business rather than criminals. The reform will introduce mandatory technical competence for all permit holders, meaning that anyone transporting or making decisions about waste will have to demonstrate that they are competent to do so, rather than simply just going on a register. Waste will be managed by authorised persons only and in a safe manner.

    Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)

    I am fascinated and happy to hear what is being proposed. Will it be possible for members of the public to check an online database for that permit? When somebody picks something up from a house and shows their permit, people can feel quite vulnerable. Being able to go online and check the permit against the local authority or central database would give people a lot more confidence.

    Mary Creagh

    I will get back to the hon. Member on that, if I may. The point of a digital waste tracking system is that everything is digitised. The problem has been that it is a paper-based register, so how can people check it at the moment? My understanding is that the move is to a digital system, but I will get back to her. I do not want to mislead her or the House. Perhaps Box officials can enlighten us while I go through the third reform of the waste permit exemptions.

    Thirdly, there are exemptions for three high-risk areas: end of life vehicles—that is, car scrappage—end of life tyres and scrap metal. Those exemptions have long caused problems and have been abused. We will replace them with a requirement for a full environmental permit for all those activities. We will introduce greater record keeping requirements for all waste exemption holders and impose controls on how exemptions can be managed at one site.

    At the moment, there are seven waste exemptions: construction waste, preparatory treatments, treatment of waste wood, manual treatment, burning vegetation at the place of production only—that is essentially for farmers—storage in containers and storage in a safe place. As I have mentioned, we have increased the waste crime investigation unit budget. It now has 43 full-time staff.

    People have often asked me about enabling the Environment Agency to use environmental permit income to tackle waste crime. Rules are set out by the Treasury in “Managing Public Money” about how the income raised by public bodies may be used. These rules ensure transparency to us as parliamentarians and ensure that fees and charges are not set higher than necessary to cover activity that should be properly funded from taxation. We instead look to innovative ideas, and the EA has consulted on the implementation of a 10% levy to generate a further £3.2 million of waste enforcement funding each year. That would enable a further 30% increase in enforcement activity to be targeted at activities identified by the EA as waste crime priorities. Those include tackling organised crime groups, increasing enforcement activity around specific areas of concern such as landfill sites, closing down illegal sites more quickly, using intelligence more effectively and delivering successful major criminal investigations.

    Calum Miller

    I am grateful to the Minister for such a comprehensive response. On the question of funding, the £15.6 million in the budget this year for tackling waste crime, as she said, is for the officers who engage in investigation, but it still strikes me as a small amount of money, with 43 officers for a crime that is now taking place up and down the country. Can she clarify whether the additional £5.6 million is now permanently in that budget and will be going forward such that the additional funds she has referred to for permitting will be over and above that sum? Fundamentally, does she think that this is enough?

    Mary Creagh

    My aim is not to spend further taxpayers’ money on crime; my aim is to stop it happening in the first place. All budget decisions are subject to the normal business planning, but we hope that, through our three-year spending review, we can give the Environment Agency a three-year or indicative settlement that will enable it to plan, rather than the annual process of, “Up this year, down next year,” so that there will be long-range line-of-sight planning. As I say, the EA is consulting at the moment on the additional extra revenue. If that goes through, there would be a funding uplift.

    I have the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade): we are happy to confirm that it is already possible to check the online database for permits, so that is good news there.

    I have mentioned the different reforms and I think I have answered all the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I am pretty much coming to the end of my speech. On steps taken since 11 December and his specific question about the rise in water level of up to two metres, equivalent to the peak recorded at Thrupp in November ’24, the waste is within a large floodplain that can store a substantial volume of water during heavy rain. The EA has carried out more detailed flood risk assessment to understand any changes in water levels due to the illegal waste and has determined that there will not be any increased flood risk to local properties. My understanding is that sandbags and a fence are there in order to protect the river.

    The EA has also carried out regular water quality sampling of the river to check for impacts of run-off or leaching and has found no indication of pollution. If any pollutants were found in the watercourse, the action would depend on the nature and type of the pollutants found.

    On fire risk at the site, EA officials have been working with the fire and rescue service, which is leading on monitoring the temperatures of the waste and planning appropriately. The fire risk was one of the main reasons that an exceptional decision was taken to progress works to clear the site entirely.

    Analysis on how the site would be cleared, including ecology surveys, has been carried out with partners and the Environment Agency to get contracts in place as soon as possible, but we need to follow legal process to ensure that the waste is disposed of correctly. The clearance timetable is being finalised and will shortly be published on the EngagementHQ website. As I said, we hope that clearance will begin in February. Early indications and scoping indicate that full clearance will take approximately six to nine months. Where possible, we are seeking to recover our costs from those responsible in accordance with the legislation and the “polluter pays” principle, and the EA is working with the economic crime unit to target the finances of waste criminals. That unit can freeze bank accounts, seize assets and investigate cases of money laundering linked to waste crime.

    Adam Jogee

    I am grateful to the Minister for setting out so clearly how seriously she is taking this issue, which will be of continued reassurance to people back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme. In many examples, waste crime is rural crime, such as in the example from the constituency of the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and for me back home. The Minister talks about working together—can she touch a little bit more on the importance of co-operation and partnership work with the Home Office to make sure that we are getting that right? Clearly, in many communities up and down the country, people think that they can get away with doing whatever they want in rural communities, where there are fewer people around. We have to make sure that we tighten that up quickly.

    Mary Creagh

    I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the things that I am very interested in exploring is what the playbook is. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock asked who such things should be reported to, and the problem is that if that is not clear, people do nothing. The most important thing when any crime is being carried out, wherever it is happening—whether that is on the Tube or wherever we see things happening—is for us as citizens to do something. That might be reporting it to the council, the local police or the Environment Agency, whose hotline is 0800 807060—I thank my officials for getting that through so that it is on the public record.

    The playbook is important. Once something has been reported, what does the local authority, the police or the EA do? What is the definition of “major site”? I have visited sites, including Watery Lane in Staffordshire, where two vanloads of fly-tipping was not classified as a major problem, and it fell to the local authority to clear it. People were locked in their homes physically unable to leave via the road—an absolutely extraordinary position for people to find themselves in. What is the playbook, what are the definitions and where do national agencies step in?

    The Environment Agency expects to fund the clearance efforts by making efficiencies in its operations, without impacting on or scaling back any other services. The EA is not funded to clear up waste sites nationally, however, and makes these types of decisions only in exceptional circumstances.

    The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock asked about additional landfill tax revenue. The waste crime survey that the EA has carried out indicates that 20% of waste is handled illegally. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that 23% of landfill tax is evaded, contributing to an annual waste crime cost of roughly £1 billion a year, including a £150 million landfill tax gap, which is 23% of the theoretical liability—I hope that everyone can understand that. That £1 billion a year shows that this is big business. It is a profitable and lucrative business, and we are all paying. We are paying twice, because we are losing the £1 billion and then clearing up the waste, so it is a double whammy for us—it is maddening.

    Calum Miller

    I am grateful to the Minister for setting out those figures so clearly. That was the point that I was driving at in addressing the budget for waste crime. It is not so much that I or anybody else wants to spend money dealing with criminals, but a relatively modest investment in detection and investigation could yield a higher proportion of that missing tax. We lose £1 billion every year, but a relatively modest increase in the waste crime unit’s budget, or the National Crime Agency doing more, could potentially bring in more of that revenue, which should be used for the benefit of all taxpayers.

    Mary Creagh

    I am in passionate agreement with the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure is everyone in the Chamber and watching at home. I would say, however, that big businesses use all available resources to protect their income. They are sophisticated businesses—some are registered companies—and they have their own ways of making life difficult for law enforcement. We are in a bit of a David and Goliath situation. They have been very good at doing that. This is a complex crime, and it takes a while to unravel.

    We continue to work with the Treasury on the best approach to fiscal policies to tackle and reduce waste crime. The joint unit for waste crime is a UK-wide partnership, working with the Environment Agency, HMRC, the National Crime Agency, the police and others. It shares intelligence, powers and resources to disrupt waste criminals. The unit, which was launched in 2024 and uses proceeds of crime action and asset freezes, has doubled in size thanks to our extra funding. Anyone with intelligence about waste crime can report it to Crimestoppers on 0800 555111.

    My message to our constituents around the country is that waste crime is an absolute top priority for the Government. My message to the waste criminals is we are coming for you and we are going to shut you down. My message to the legitimate waste operators is thank you for your work maintaining safe, healthy and clean environments in our towns and putting pride in our places. Let us all ensure that we work together to create a truly circular economy in which this sort of terrible crime is unthinkable and its perpetrators are put out of business.