To meet our ambitious waste reduction targets, we cannot tolerate waste crime – My Bill aims to restore accountability

**A BILL TO require large companies to appoint a named director responsible for compliance with statutory waste duty of care obligations; to make such companies financially responsible for the clean-up and clearance of waste they have generated or controlled where that waste is mismanaged and the duty of care has not been discharged; and for connected purposes.**


An estimated 38 million tonnes of waste in England alone is handled illegally every year—enough to fill Wembley Stadium some 30 times over. This is not a victimless crime. Sites of Special Scientific Interest are being trashed, precious habitats damaged, and communities blighted. The economic cost is conservatively put at £1 billion annually, borne not by those responsible but by taxpayers, landowners, and local authorities. This is a systemic failure, and it demands a systemic response.

Britain has a waste problem that is hiding in plain sight. From fly-tipped construction materials to illegally exported plastic and large scale dumping of mixed shredded waste—where materials are deliberately processed to obscure their origin and evade scrutiny—the consequences of poor waste management are borne not by those who produce it, but by communities, landowners, and the public purse. My Corporate Waste Responsibility Bill seeks to change that—by placing accountability squarely where it belongs: in the boardroom.

At present, the legal framework is clear in principle but weak in practice. Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 imposes a duty of care on those who produce or handle waste. Yet enforcement remains patchy, and too often large companies can claim ignorance when their waste ends up dumped in a field or abandoned in a warehouse. The result is a system where responsibility is diffuse and, in many cases, effectively evaded.

This Bill introduces a simple but transformative reform: every large company must appoint a named director responsible for compliance with waste duty of care obligations. This is not about creating unnecessary bureaucracy. It is about ensuring that waste compliance is treated with the same seriousness as financial reporting or health and safety—areas where board-level accountability has driven real cultural change.

The named director will be required to take reasonable steps to ensure robust systems and controls are in place, including proper due diligence when contracting waste services. They will also report annually to the board on compliance. In short, this measure brings transparency and ownership to an area too often characterised by opacity.

But accountability must extend beyond governance structures. That is why the Bill also establishes a clear principle: if a company’s waste is mismanaged because it has failed in its duty of care, it should bear the cost of putting that right. Whether it is cleaning up illegally dumped waste, securing a contaminated site, or restoring damaged land, those costs should not fall on local authorities or private landowners who had no part in the original activity.

This is not a radical proposition—it is a fair one. The “polluter pays” principle is well established in environmental policy, yet its application to waste crime has been inconsistent. By enabling public authorities and affected parties to recover clean-up costs as a civil debt, the Bill provides a practical mechanism to give effect to that principle.

Crucially, the Bill also strengthens transparency and intelligence-sharing. Companies will be required to notify regulators of their named director and to report material breaches or suspected criminal activity within their waste supply chains. Record-keeping requirements—covering the transfer, treatment, and final destination of waste—will ensure there is a clear audit trail.

Taken together, these measures address a systemic weakness: the lack of traceability and accountability in commercial waste management. They also support the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales in targeting enforcement more effectively.

For responsible businesses, this Bill should not be seen as a burden but as a safeguard. Many companies already take their environmental responsibilities seriously and invest in compliant waste management. They are undercut by rogue operators and opaque supply chains that allow costs to be externalised. By levelling the playing field, this legislation rewards good practice and deters bad actors.

The UK has set ambitious targets on resource efficiency and waste reduction. But we cannot meet those ambitions while tolerating a system that allows waste crime to flourish and costs to be socialised. Clear accountability, robust oversight, and fair cost recovery are essential if we are to move towards a more circular and responsible economy.

This Bill is, at its heart, about restoring trust—trust that companies will manage their waste responsibly, and trust that when they do not, they will be held to account. That is a principle that should command support across Parliament and beyond.