Written questions by Midgley.

Representing the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, what information he holds on the total amount claimed by hon. Members for postage costs through IPSA in each year since 2015.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) has provided the total aggregated spend on postage costs across all MPs in the table below.Financial YearSpend2015-16£185,9312016-17£101,5722017-18£163,6912018-19£150,7232019-20£167,1452020-21£296,2372021-22£160,9702022-23£163,6732023-24£191,3792024-25£259,6112025-26£382,8002026-27 (as of 13 April 2026)£48,487 The figures are not directly comparable as the categorisation of spending has been simplified in the years since 2015 and can include the cost of other services such as stationery, telephone services, and courier services.It should also be noted that the House of Commons provides MPs with an annual stationery budget. As IPSA does not administer this budget, the figures above do not include any spending on postage by MPs from the House of Commons stationery budget.

Food and Rural Affairs, how many illegal waste sites are located on green belt land.

This data is not held centrally.

Food and Rural Affairs, how many illegal waste sites are located within one kilometre of residential communities.

This data is not held centrally.

Food and Rural Affairs, how many prosecutions has the Environment Agency brought for operating illegal waste sites in each of the last five years.

Successful prosecutions associated with illegal waste sites investigations (where the court hearing date is in the requested timeframe and the verdict is guilty): 2021 – 422022 – 482023 – 472024 – 822025 – 68 This data is subject to change as cases reach conclusion and does not include records where a permit breach has been identified.

Food and Rural Affairs, what the average financial penalty issued for waste crime was in the last five years.

Average fine for where the incident type was waste (regardless of whether related to an illegal waste site) and where the hearing date falls in the 2020 - 2025 range. This data also includes community orders: 2021 - £113,647.962022 - £3,268.002023 - £11,226.032024 - £8,993.222025 - £38, 535.30 This data is subject to change as cases reach conclusion.N.B several large fines (e.g £1m, £200k) in 2021 are responsible for the significantly higher average compared to other years.

Food and Rural Affairs, how many enforcement notices for illegal waste operations are outstanding.

In the last 5 years (1 January 2021 – 31 December 2025) there have been 73 notices served under Section 59 and Section 34 of Environmental Protection Act 1990. A Section 59 notice requires the removal of unlawfully deposited waste, and a Section 34 notice requires a waste holder to produce records. Of those served, 8 are awaiting a compliance outcome and 61 have not been complied with.

Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate her Department has made of the total volume of illegally stored or dumped waste currently present at illegal waste sites in the UK.

Total tonnage of waste on illegal waste sites that were operational on or after 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2025C (inclusive) and have not been brought into regulation or cleared of waste: 5,544,462. NB: This data is taken from a live system and maybe subject to change as investigation details are updated.

Food and Rural Affairs, how many illegal waste sites were identified in the UK in each of the last five years.

Total number of illegal waste sites identified per calendar year: 2021: 5832022: 5042023: 5652024: 8922025: 823 NB: This data is taken from a live system and maybe subject to change as investigation details are updated.

Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate her Department has made of the total number of illegal waste dumps currently operating in the UK.

Total number of illegal waste sites operating as of 17 March 2026: 537. NB: This data is taken from a live system and maybe subject to change as investigation details are updated.

Food and Rural Affairs, how many enforcement actions the Environment Agency has taken against illegal waste sites in each of the last five years.

Total number of actions dated within each calendar year for records relating to illegal waste sites. Prosecution outcomes have been removed as these are provided separately in PQ 121091. 2021: 7502022: 5492023: 5742024: 3352025: 343 NB: This data is taken from a live system and maybe subject to change as investigation details are updated.

Food and Rural Affairs, how many illegal waste sites have been identified in each region of England.

Total number of Illegal waste sites found per calendar year split by Environment Agency area: NB: This data is taken from a live system and maybe subject to change as investigation details are updated. Environment Agency Area20212022202320242025TotalCumbria and Lancashire4034574847226Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Cheshire392265722146Yorkshire4541597933257East Midlands505136147202486North East2320135843157Hertfordshire and North London24295340128Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire5544854925258Solent and South Downs4018295734178West Midlands67517110574368Kent, South London and East Sussex4145644895293Thames211613221688Wessex3920165663194Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly5562536373306East Anglia4478545056282Total583504565892823 3,367

Food and Rural Affairs, how many illegal waste site operators have received custodial sentences in each of the last five years.

YearCount of immediate custodial sentencesCount of suspended sentences202159202268202348202416162025018

Food and Rural Affairs, which local authority areas have the highest number of illegal waste sites currently under investigation by the Environment Agency.

This data is not available centrally to this level of detail.

⁠⁠what mechanisms are in place to monitor compliance by local areas with statutory guidance on the timely commissioning and completion of Domestic Homicide Reviews.

Domestic homicide reviews (DHR) offer a vital opportunity for national and local agencies, local communities and society as a whole to learn lessons from domestic abuse related deaths and treat every death as preventable. However, whilst the Government remains committed to the fundamental principles of the DHR process, I recognise that there is room for improvement and that more must be done to improve how DHRs are currently conducted.DHRs are the responsibility of local Community Safety Partnerships. The Home Office provides guidance through statutory guidance; however, it does not get involved in local processes or individual cases.The Home Office has been undertaking a programme of work to reform DHRs. The aim of these reforms is to increase efficiency, enhance accountability, and ensure that recommendations are disseminated and embedded swiftly. The Home Office is planning to publish updated statutory guidance to ensure that a more effective and streamlined process is put in place going forward. This is due to be published within the coming months.Historically there have been significant delays in the DHR quality assurance (QA) process. To resolve this, we have now reformed the QA system and launched a new DHR Quality Assurance Board, appointing three new public office holders. The Board members bring decades of frontline experience and are experts in domestic abuse with specialisms in policing, stalking, ‘honor’-based abuse, and economic abuse. This replaces the former QA Panel and is designed to streamline review procedures, ensure consistent, high-quality feedback, and provide Community Safety Partnerships with more timely responses going forward.Each DHR is unique, and therefore the timescales are variable, however, the statutory guidance is clear that local areas should be proportionate with scope and time frames and that any delays are clearly accounted for in the final DHR. Due to the variety of different cases, we are not able to comment on specific delays in each case.

⁠⁠what recent discussions she has had with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner on (a) the timing of launching Domestic Homicide Reviews and (b) the implementation of recommendations.

Taking learnings seriously following domestic abuse related deaths is paramount. Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) offer a vital opportunity for national and local agencies, local communities and society as a whole to learn lessons from domestic abuse related deaths and treat every death as preventable.I recognise the important role of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s (DAC) Office in relation to DHRs, as reflected in the statutory requirement for all published DHRs to be submitted to the DAC’s Office. That is why my officials meet with the DAC’s Office monthly to discuss reflections on the DHR process and the implementation of learning. I meet the DAC regularly, most recently on 3 February 2026 at the Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy Advisory Board.The Home Office has committed to funding and delivering an oversight mechanism for recommendations made within DHRs. We will put in place a system that strengthens accountability and ensures learning is consistently embedded across both local and national agencies.

What steps her Department is taking to ensure that Domestic Homicide Reviews are launched as soon as possible.

Domestic homicide reviews (DHR) offer a vital opportunity for national and local agencies, local communities and society as a whole to learn lessons from domestic abuse related deaths and treat every death as preventable. However, whilst the Government remains committed to the fundamental principles of the DHR process, I recognise that there is room for improvement and that more must be done to improve how DHRs are currently conducted.DHRs are the responsibility of local Community Safety Partnerships. The Home Office provides guidance through statutory guidance; however, it does not get involved in local processes or individual cases.The Home Office has been undertaking a programme of work to reform DHRs. The aim of these reforms is to increase efficiency, enhance accountability, and ensure that recommendations are disseminated and embedded swiftly. The Home Office is planning to publish updated statutory guidance to ensure that a more effective and streamlined process is put in place going forward. This is due to be published within the coming months.Historically there have been significant delays in the DHR quality assurance (QA) process. To resolve this, we have now reformed the QA system and launched a new DHR Quality Assurance Board, appointing three new public office holders. The Board members bring decades of frontline experience and are experts in domestic abuse with specialisms in policing, stalking, ‘honor’-based abuse, and economic abuse. This replaces the former QA Panel and is designed to streamline review procedures, ensure consistent, high-quality feedback, and provide Community Safety Partnerships with more timely responses going forward.Each DHR is unique, and therefore the timescales are variable, however, the statutory guidance is clear that local areas should be proportionate with scope and time frames and that any delays are clearly accounted for in the final DHR. Due to the variety of different cases, we are not able to comment on specific delays in each case.

⁠⁠what consequences apply to public bodies that do not implement recommendations arising from Domestic Homicide Reviews.

Taking learnings seriously following domestic abuse related deaths is paramount to preventing fatal domestic abuse. I recognise that Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHR) offer a vital opportunity for national and local agencies, local communities and society as a whole to learn lessons from domestic abuse related deaths and treat every death as preventable.The statutory guidance is clear that local Community Safety Partnerships have a responsibility to monitor the implementation of action plans, as set out in section 79(f) of the guidance. Additionally, section 79(g) states that a DHR is not formally concluded until the action plan has been implemented, including completion of an audit process.The importance of dissemination of learnings is also clearly outlined in the statutory guidance, section 110 (a-f). This includes distributing learnings locally through multi-agency settings but also that ensuring the final report is shared with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Police and Crime commissioner.At present, the Home Office does not monitor the progress of individual action plans. However, I understand the importance of oversight, and therefore, I am currently exploring options for improving oversight of DHR recommendations.

What central oversight exists to ensure that recommendations from Domestic Homicide Reviews are acted upon by relevant agencies.

Taking learnings seriously following domestic abuse related deaths is paramount to preventing fatal domestic abuse. I recognise that Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHR) offer a vital opportunity for national and local agencies, local communities and society as a whole to learn lessons from domestic abuse related deaths and treat every death as preventable.The statutory guidance is clear that local Community Safety Partnerships have a responsibility to monitor the implementation of action plans, as set out in section 79(f) of the guidance. Additionally, section 79(g) states that a DHR is not formally concluded until the action plan has been implemented, including completion of an audit process.The importance of dissemination of learnings is also clearly outlined in the statutory guidance, section 110 (a-f). This includes distributing learnings locally through multi-agency settings but also that ensuring the final report is shared with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Police and Crime commissioner.At present, the Home Office does not monitor the progress of individual action plans. However, I understand the importance of oversight, and therefore, I am currently exploring options for improving oversight of DHR recommendations.

⁠what proportion of recommendations arising from Domestic Homicide Reviews have been (a) fully implemented, (b) partially implemented and (c) not implemented in each of the last five years.

Taking learnings seriously following domestic abuse related deaths is paramount to preventing fatal domestic abuse. I recognise that Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHR) offer a vital opportunity for national and local agencies, local communities and society as a whole to learn lessons from domestic abuse related deaths and treat every death as preventable.The statutory guidance is clear that local Community Safety Partnerships have a responsibility to monitor the implementation of action plans, as set out in section 79(f) of the guidance. Additionally, section 79(g) states that a DHR is not formally concluded until the action plan has been implemented, including completion of an audit process.The importance of dissemination of learnings is also clearly outlined in the statutory guidance, section 110 (a-f). This includes distributing learnings locally through multi-agency settings but also that ensuring the final report is shared with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Police and Crime commissioner.At present, the Home Office does not monitor the progress of individual action plans. However, I understand the importance of oversight, and therefore, I am currently exploring options for improving oversight of DHR recommendations.

How many Domestic Homicide Reviews were not commissioned within the statutory timescale in each of the last five years; and what the longest recorded time taken was in that period.

Domestic homicide reviews (DHR) offer a vital opportunity for national and local agencies, local communities and society as a whole to learn lessons from domestic abuse related deaths and treat every death as preventable. However, whilst the Government remains committed to the fundamental principles of the DHR process, I recognise that there is room for improvement and that more must be done to improve how DHRs are currently conducted.DHRs are the responsibility of local Community Safety Partnerships. The Home Office provides guidance through statutory guidance; however, it does not get involved in local processes or individual cases.The Home Office has been undertaking a programme of work to reform DHRs. The aim of these reforms is to increase efficiency, enhance accountability, and ensure that recommendations are disseminated and embedded swiftly. The Home Office is planning to publish updated statutory guidance to ensure that a more effective and streamlined process is put in place going forward. This is due to be published within the coming months.Historically there have been significant delays in the DHR quality assurance (QA) process. To resolve this, we have now reformed the QA system and launched a new DHR Quality Assurance Board, appointing three new public office holders. The Board members bring decades of frontline experience and are experts in domestic abuse with specialisms in policing, stalking, ‘honor’-based abuse, and economic abuse. This replaces the former QA Panel and is designed to streamline review procedures, ensure consistent, high-quality feedback, and provide Community Safety Partnerships with more timely responses going forward.Each DHR is unique, and therefore the timescales are variable, however, the statutory guidance is clear that local areas should be proportionate with scope and time frames and that any delays are clearly accounted for in the final DHR. Due to the variety of different cases, we are not able to comment on specific delays in each case.