The House of Lords heard ‘removing the instrument of the crime is one of the most effective deterrents available’
Fy-tippers face losing their driving licences in the wake of a debate in Parliament. Peers backed a Conservative proposal to punish fly-tipping offenders with three penalty points on their licence, as they debated the Government’s wide-ranging Crime and Policing Bill.
They also called “content” to back another Conservative amendment to clarify in law that police can seize vehicles used to dump waste illegally. The Government “is looking carefully and quickly” at the prospect of punishing fly-tippers with penalty points on their driving licence, Home Office minister Lord Hanson of Flint said.
A 12 metre high, 20,000 tonne waste tip near Kidlington, Oxfordshire, along with 1.26 million fly-tipping incidents which English local authorities dealt with throughout 2024/25, have helped to “focus Government minds” on the issue, he added. Lord Davies of Gower, a Conservative shadow Home Office minister, said “it seems almost self-evident to say that much fly-tipping is vehicle-enabled”.
He continued: “Vans and cars are used to transport waste far from the original site and dump it illegally. For many offenders, particularly those operating for attractive profit margins, a fine or loan may be viewed as a calculated business risk and a price worth paying. The prospect of licence endorsement, however, introduces a personal and escalating consequence.”
Turning to vehicle seizures, Lord Davies said: “If a vehicle is reasonably believed to have been used in connection with fly-tipping, the police should have the powers to act decisively. Removing the instrument of the crime is one of the most effective deterrents available, and this amendment would disrupt organised dumping activity and reinforce the seriousness with which we should treat environmental crime.”
Former Metropolitan Police commissioner Lord Hogan-Howe, an independent crossbencher, said he supported the proposals. “We have seen that they have been effective measures. It doesn’t stop people driving necessarily but it restricts their mobility for a while.
“They can still drive but, you know what, the police have got an opportunity to lock them up because they’re driving while disqualified, so it starts to inhibit their mobility. And the second thing is obviously to take the vehicles.
“So a large vehicle can be worth £20-, £50-, £100,000. This starts to make a difference in their business model and that, it seems to me, is vital.”
Lord Hogan-Howe said the authorities could sell either destroyed or whole vehicles, “so actually, the money hat is taken from the offender is then applied straight away to law enforcement”.
He warned health hazards linked to illegal dumping were “growing – sometimes toxic waste, sometimes just rat infestations”, including near homes. Responding, Lord Hanson told the upper chamber that an amendment dealing with driving licences would need to deal with the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 “which deals with driving licences enforcements as opposed to the Environmental Protection Act 1990”.
He continued: “The Government is looking carefully and quickly at this issue of penalty points, and although I can’t accept it today, we will have to look at how we can put that principle in practice in due course.”
He added he understood “the sentiment” behind Lord Davies’s proposal to have vehicles seized. But “local authorities already have the power to seize vehicles linked to waste crime under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and vehicles can be kept, sold or disposed by local authorities”, Lord Hanson added.
Turning to new figures which showed English town halls dealt with 1.26 million incidents in 2024/25, Lord Hanson said: “What those figures do and what the Kidlington incident has done is focus Government minds on this. And this government is trying to respond to that in a responsible way.”
The Government also suffered a defeat in the voting lobbies, when peers backed a Conservative amendment by 213 votes to 150, majority 63, to demand fly-tipping guidance which would clarify “where a person is convicted of a relevant offence, they are liable for costs incurred through loss or damage resulting from the offence”.
The Bill must undergo further scrutiny before it can become law.
