(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Global Plastics Treaty.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time available for this debate, and for allocating the debate to the main Chamber. That is an important signal that the House is in political consensus on the issue, and we attach a great deal of importance to that. I thank those Members who supported the application for the debate to the Backbench Business Committee, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage). She has a long and distinguished record of campaigning on this issue, but is unfortunately unable to be here.
I also express my appreciation for the support of the various campaigners—organisations and individuals—who have kept this issue in the public consciousness for so long, not always in the easiest of circumstances. At this turn of the wheel, I particularly thank Greenpeace UK for the assistance of its campaigner Rudy Schulkind, but in the past, I had a private Member’s Bill on the subject, and that was supported by a whole range of organisations, from the women’s institute through to Friends of the Earth. We have to call that a broad-based consensus.
This debate is timely. The next round of talks on the UN global plastics treaty will be held in Geneva between 5 and 14 August. The Government, I am happy to acknowledge, have a good story to tell, and in fairness, they inherited the record of the previous Government, who also accorded some political importance to this issue. The message I want the Chamber to send today is that the Government have to do all that they can—not just in presenting the UK case, but in supporting others.
For those of us who, like me, come from island and coastal communities, the growth of plastic pollution has been obvious for years. Ahead of this debate, I got an email just a couple of days ago from a constituent of mine, Jim Chalmers, who said:
“I can remember as a child beachcombing around the south end of Stronsay, and coming across the occasional unfamiliar plastic bottle and being intrigued by its novelty. It might have been an empty washing-up liquid bottle of a kind unknown in our household or even had words in a foreign language.”
Fast-forward to 2025, and the position is very different on the beaches of the Orkney and Shetland coastline, and right around the coastline of all European countries. Even when we go out on a beach that looks pretty clear and pristine, if we start picking up the small pieces of plastic, 10 or 15 minutes later, we have a carrier bag full of them.
In Orkney and Shetland, we have a great range of community initiatives to tackle this issue. In Orkney, we have the “bag the bruck” campaign every year. In Shetland, we have Da Voar Redd Up. Despite the community effort and people taking responsibility for stretches of coastline and picking up the rubbish, weeks later, it is as if almost nobody had ever been there. The tipping point for public consciousness on this issue was the “Blue Planet” series by Sir David Attenborough a few years ago. That created sufficient public pressure, so that in 2022, there was a decision by 175 countries to develop an internationally legally binding instrument to address the problem of plastic pollution. That matters on so many levels, and it is why the word “global” is central to the treaty.
Plastics as an industry emits more carbon than the entire global aviation and shipping industries. The question we should ask ourselves is: what exactly does “good” look like at the conclusion of the talks in Geneva? I cannot improve on the fine summary in the briefing from the Environmental Investigation Agency and Greenpeace ahead of today’s debate. They state that we should be looking for:
“A global target to reduce production of primary plastic polymers and related elements such as reporting and national measures.”
Reducing production is critical; I will return to that in a minute or two. They also call for a
“Clear and legally binding obligation to phase out the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern in plastics…A binding obligation to improve the design of plastic products and ensure they cause minimum environmental impact and safeguard human health, including supporting reuse…Provision of ambitious finance (‘effective means of implementation’) in particular for Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States”.
Finally, they call for:
“Using regular UN procedures for decision-making if all efforts at consensus have been exhausted”.
If we can achieve something along those lines in Geneva, we will have some cause for optimism.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He has outlined the important global action that we need to take on plastics. Does he agree that this Government’s action to bring forward a deposit return scheme will help address some of these issues? It will ensure that we can recycle plastics, and that will take them off the streets and beaches, where they are ending up.
Mr Carmichael
Yes, if it is a properly constructed, nationwide deposit return scheme. The experience in Scotland was, shall we say, not everything that it might have been. A properly constructed scheme will be critical. I see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), on the Front Bench, and I know she has a tremendous personal commitment to this issue. This is about creating a circular economy. I know there is a genuine commitment to that in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and a deposit return scheme would very much sit within that.
We talk about such measures being somehow in conflict with business. Importantly, the fundamental truth is that the best opportunity for business comes from having a circular economy. We can make not just an environmental and social case for that, but a business case.
Ensuring that the treaty has the strongest possible reduction targets will be absolutely critical. That is where the contention has arisen in previous rounds of talks, and we can anticipate that the same arguments will be rehearsed. The most important point to address, however, is the idea that somehow the whole thing will be fixed by recycling and that we can just keep producing virgin plastics at an exponential rate. We reckon that the current exceptionally high levels will treble by 2060 if we do not do anything to arrest the increase.
We cannot manage to fix it all by recycling, and the people who advance that idea—particularly those who work for the big plastic companies and the petrochemical companies—are downright disingenuous. Given the vast number of different plastics that are available and the different polymer combinations, they know just how difficult it is to actually recycle plastic. This country has a good record on collecting plastic for recycling, but the truth of the matter is that we recycle very little of it. We export a horrible amount of it—I think we exported 598 million kilograms for recycling in 2024. Of course, once it is exported, we do not know if it gets recycled or not, and we completely lose control of it. Then we have the growth of incineration. The number of incinerators has grown from 38 to 52 in the last five years alone, driven by the growth in plastics. I am afraid the idea that recycling alone is going to be the silver bullet will not lead to the meaningful reductions that we know we need, so we need a cap on production.
We also understand that one of the biggest barriers in Geneva is going to be the role of the plastics industry itself. It is exceptionally well resourced, and it is rooted downstream of the oil and gas industry. Personally, I am pragmatic about the use of oil and gas. Until we have other technologies that can take its place, it is foolish to push our oil and gas industry off the shelf, but I am afraid I see little to commend in its behaviour. Had the industry’s representatives all come as one delegation to the last round of talks in Korea, it would have been the largest delegation at the talks. I am pleased to say that the UK delegation is the gold standard in this space. It is well resourced, and is well informed by scientific advisers, but that is not a cause for complacency or smugness. We have to see that it gives us an opportunity to help and support others.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which I chair, took evidence on the global plastics treaty just last week, on 8 July, and some of what I heard was genuinely shocking. Professor Richard Thompson OBE, who is a fellow of the Royal Society and a professor of marine biology at the University of Plymouth, said:
“Moreover, scientists I work with have been threatened on UN premises as part of these negotiations. Almost what I would consider a fundamental right to science and to access science is being denied. It particularly falls on some of the smaller nations. DEFRA is very well blessed in that it can afford to send a big delegation of highly trained scientists, which is fantastic, but they stand alongside small island developing nations, which perhaps only have one individual there. The need for a science mechanism is actually mandated in UNEA 5/14, and we need it really urgently to address this issue.”
It was one of those moments when I had to stop and say, “Just a second, did you say what I thought you said there?” Even after we had explained to him his position as an eminent scientist giving evidence to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, with all the protection of privilege, he was not comfortable calling out in detail what is happening.
The fact of the matter is that we know that it is happening. If we are to get this treaty across the line, UK needs to be robust not just in presenting our own case, but in supporting and protecting those who are less fortunate than we are: the small island nations, the campaigners and the scientists who are there on their own finance. My final ask is that there should be a ministerial presence at the negotiations in Geneva, which would be a really important signal that the Government could send about the seriousness of their intent.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you said I would speak for 15 minutes and I think I have had 14, so I will return to the email that I got from Jim Chalmers. He went on to say:
“I’m sure I have a reputation as that weird guy that carries a bag with him when he’s out with the dog, picking up litter (I call it recyclates). However, I know fine I’m urinating into the wind”
—he did not actually say “urinating”—
“as I have no control whatsoever over the source of the stuff and the forces that encourage and permit its growing release. I appreciate that the 17th of this month is not a good time for you to be away from Orkney”
—there is never a good time to be away from Orkney—
“but if you can somehow bring any influence to bear, I would feel my efforts aren’t totally in vain.”
It is for people like my constituent Mr Chalmers and his likes right across this country that we are here today. We pin our hopes and their hopes on the efforts of the Government and like-minded countries to get the treaty that we know we need and that our planet deserves.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate. I know he is deeply committed to this issue.
I want to draw attention to a part of this crisis that is often overlooked but no less urgent: microplastics, which I know the Minister is passionate about too. These tiny fragments, much smaller than a grain of rice, are everywhere. They have reached the depths of our oceans and the highest mountain peaks, and the harm they cause is far from small. We know from science that microplastics are being eaten by fish, birds and insects. They harm wildlife from the inside out by disrupting feeding, damaging organs and carrying toxic chemicals, and the impact does not just stay in the wild. It spreads through ecosystems and food chains, and into our own bodies.
What troubles me the most is that microplastics are largely invisible. We cannot see them, but we are living with them every day. This is not just a global problem; it is a local one too. In Stafford, we are really lucky to have places such as the Doxey marshes, Staffordshire and Worcestershire canal, and the River Sow, which weaves through our towns and villages. These are places where families walk their dogs, children paddle in the water, anglers fish and wildlife thrives. They are not just part of our landscape, but part of who we are.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is giving an incredibly powerful speech. Microplastics are also part of what we are wearing, and microfibres are a key part of the problem with plastics. I wonder if, like me, she is interested in what the French have done to get companies to disclose when microfibres are part of the material used in clothing. In order to tackle the “fast fashion” crisis, people need to understand what they are wearing and the damage that microplastics can do to our environment.
Leigh Ingham
I was not familiar with the legislation that France has passed. When I buy clothes, I try to make sure that I buy natural fibres, which can be tough to do—I find that I really have to search for them. We could look at introducing similar legislation, which sounds like a very sensible piece of work.
The spaces I was talking about are now under threat. When I talk to residents in my constituency—from Eccleshall and Gnosall to Baswich—they all tell me that they are really worried. They want their children and grandchildren to grow up enjoying clean water, healthy wildlife and safe green spaces, so they are right to demand action. That is why I think microplastics must be a core part of any global plastics treaty. It is not enough to tackle the waste we can see; we also need to tackle the waste we cannot see.
I welcome the work of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I look forward to its recommendations. I know I am speaking to Ministers who listen very carefully on this subject and consider it incredibly important, but I urge them to continue to act, because we have a responsibility to lead and a duty to protect the places we call home. We owe it to future generations to make sure that the River Penk still supports life, that our farmland remains healthy and that the natural beauty of Stafford—and other places, too—does not become a victim of short-term decisions. This is our chance now, so let us not waste it.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The world produces over 460 million tonnes of plastic each year. On our current trajectory, plastic pollution is set to triple by 2040, and every year 11 million tonnes of plastic goes into our oceans.
In Devon, this picture is very obvious. According to the Marine Conservation Society’s data, an average of 103 litter items were found per 100 metres of beach in Devon. The vast majority are single-use plastics and packaging, and anyone taking the very wise decision to have a holiday in Devon this year will see from it themselves. I have seen it for myself. When I wander along the beaches of Sidmouth, Seaton and Beer, I see bottles and wrappers washing up with the tide, wedged between pebbles and entangled in seaweed. We are very fortunate to have some fantastic volunteers, with groups such as the Sidmouth Plastic Warriors, who give freely of their time to clean our beaches. On its most recent outing last month, 30 people picked up an incredible 70 bags of litter. Their work is extraordinary, but there should not be 70 bags of plastic litter on the beaches of Sidmouth.
Of course, the problem does not start on the beach. It starts in how we produce and consume plastic in the first place, but there are serious shortcomings in the UK’s recycling. We were sold a myth that if we just spent a little bit of time each week sorting our rubbish, the problem would take care of itself. However, in 2024 CleanHub reported that the UK exported 600,000 tonnes of plastic waste to countries around the world to be recycled, and these places do not have the infrastructure to recycle properly. Much of this is burned or dumped, and we have seen evidence that it is polluting other countries’ ecosystems, while we tick a box and say it has been recycled.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
On this important point about the capacity of different countries to hit certain standards, the hon. Gentleman may have reprocessors—companies that take plastic waste and repurpose it—in his constituency. An important part of this debate has to be about packaging recovery notes and packaging export recovery notes, which provide an equivalence, but waste is often taken to countries such as Turkey that have much lower standards than in this country, which is bad not only for British businesses, but for the global environment. I think the Government are working on that, and I would love to hear a bit more about that from the Minister, but what does the hon. Gentleman have to say about it?
Richard Foord
The hon. Member makes a very good point. The business of our standards being very different is one we should look at first. These notes plainly need to be looked at, and we will have to go about some international negotiations to try to improve standards elsewhere. The UK has high recycling standards internationally, but it is not acceptable to simply offshore the problem, which does not serve any of us well.
Not only is plastic waste a hazard to people, but it is killing seabirds, as well as hundreds of thousands of sea mammals, turtles and fish, and it is having a devastating impact on our environment more broadly.
Deirdre Costigan
Does the hon. Member agree that the Government’s banning of disposable plastic vapes is another way we can help reduce this plastic waste?
Richard Foord
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. I voted in favour of that initiative when it came before us, and the banning of disposable plastic vapes was very welcome.
Too much waste still ends up in incinerators. Sometimes, what we think will be repurposed or recycled is in fact burned. The number of incinerators in the UK has risen from 38 to 52 in the last five years. This is the dirtiest form of energy production, releasing more greenhouse gases than any other method.
While my constituents may have been enjoying their ice creams at Seaton or walking the south-west coast path during the recent heatwave, these hotter summers are a stark reminder of our collective failure to tackle climate change. If we can increase the amount of plastic we reuse and create the circular economy that my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, we can use less disposable plastic and less single-use plastic, and therefore reduce carbon emissions.
Germany is the leading recycler of municipal waste in the European Union, which is partly down to its deposit refund scheme. Recycling rates on plastic bottles have reached an outstanding 98% in Germany. I have to acknowledge that it is thanks to the measures the Government introduced in January that a deposit return scheme for plastic and metal containers will go live in the UK in 2027. This scheme, which will offer a small refund for returning bottles and cans in the UK, is a practical step towards reusing plastic.
Although national action is welcome, we need to match our own UK action with international action, and the UK can be a real leader in this space. We can press for our ambition to be matched by other countries in the global plastics treaty negotiations. We must push for legally binding targets to reduce plastic production elsewhere, not just voluntary pledges. We offshore a lot of our production—including to China, which accounts for 40% of the world’s plastic production. We know that the carbon emissions produced as a result are staggering, and we must do something about them. If the Government are serious about deepening ties with Beijing, they must also be serious about holding it to account, and that starts with applying pressure at the global plastics treaty negotiations next month.
As we know, the US President has never been a great advocate for tackling climate change or reducing plastic waste. He made that abundantly clear in his attention-seeking stunt in February, when he proudly brought back plastic straws. At the heads of delegation meeting earlier this month, the US backtracked on its previous position. It walked away from earlier commitments on control measures and financing, and came out firmly against plastic production caps. The Prime Minister has explicitly cited family values as a foundation of his strong relationship with the US President. Could the Minister urge the Prime Minister to leverage that personal connection, and ask the President to consider not just global leadership, but the world that his own family will inherit? We have to consider young people in this picture, and for that we will need serious and concrete commitments at the global plastics treaty negotiations.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, much of which I agree with. I am sure that he, like me, visits many schools. Does he agree that when he visits them and speaks to young people, they are very, very concerned about the environment, and in particular plastic pollution? In many ways, our great hope is that their laser focus on this issue will be reflected in the policy of future generations and that plastic production is reduced.
Richard Foord
The hon. Gentleman is dead right. Children from Sidmouth primary school wrote to me earlier in the year, urging me to advocate for reduced plastic use and for cutting down our plastic use. I quoted them in a debate and the Minister for Nature, who is no longer in her place, summed up the debate with their words.
Let us be honest: voluntary efforts have failed. The World Wildlife Fund reports that in the past five years plastic pollution has increased by 50%, despite a 60% rise in national and voluntary initiatives. The treaty must therefore tackle the source of the problem—the production of plastic—and confront the power of the fossil fuel lobby, which is desperately trying to water down the talks. At last year’s round of negotiations, 220 fossil fuel lobbyists were present in Busan. Their goal was to protect their own profit, not the planet. We cannot allow short-term commercial interests to derail the long-term health of our oceans and communities. Plastic production is forecast to triple by 2040. If we do not act, no recycling scheme will be enough.
I will hand my last paragraph to the children at Sidmouth primary school. They want to see “deeds, not words”.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord); we usually sit together on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Nowhere is global co-operation more important than on climate work. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this important debate and for his brilliant speech, which eloquently set out why this issue is so important. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—not to be confused with Stratford—(Leigh Ingham) spoke about microplastics. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) had a debate on that very topic, in which many of us spoke. Following that, last November, ahead of the previous round of treaty negotiations in Busan, hon. Members came together to debate the same issue. Now, at the final round of negotiations, we have come back together. Countries are on the verge of finalising a potentially powerful international agreement, but its impact will be limited unless it addresses the root of the problem: plastic production.
UN estimates suggest that in the two and a half years since the treaty negotiations started, globally we have produced over 1 billion metric tonnes of plastic. The scale is staggering and almost unimaginable, but one thing is clear: no amount of recycling and reuse can keep up with the scale of plastic waste we are producing. If we do not act, collectively and urgently, the crisis will only escalate. Plastic production is projected to triple by 2060. Our climate, our ecosystems and our planet cannot cope. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the impact on our ecosystem and our beaches, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) mentioned single-use items, such as disposable vapes and disposable fans. One is dumped in Britain every 90 seconds. Most end up in the global south in landfills, risking massive environmental damage. I am proud to have sat on the Committee, led by the Minister, that considered the legislation to ban this. That is the Labour Government taking real action.
There are interest groups working to undermine our ambition. Having participated in international biodiversity and climate talks, both in my previous role before I entered this House and since, I have seen at first hand what that looks like: voices in the room determined to stall talks and undermine global and national ambition. As we have heard, the shocking truth is that 220 fossil fuel lobbyists were present at the last round of talks on the plastics treaty. Taken together, fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists would have been the single largest delegation present: larger than the EU and all its member states’ delegations; and larger than all those for Latin America. The fossil fuel industries outnumbered delegates from the Pacific small island states two to one. Those nations already see the effects of marine plastic pollution and are already paying the price for our inaction. We cannot allow the voice of the fossil fuel industry to be louder than the cry of our planet, or more influential than the testimony of science. We cannot allow it to be more powerful than the voices of our constituents and those wanting to create a more sustainable future for generations to come.
In London, we have shown that another future is possible. It requires bold leadership, and we are one such example of that. We are the world-leading city in eliminating single-use plastics from large sports and music venues, including “ABBA Voyage” in my constituency and locally-led movements like Plastic Free Forest Gate, which works with businesses on the high street to get rid of single-use plastic items, and Plastic Free Roman Road. I also have some eco-warriors in one of my local schools in Maryland. Last week, I met a group of constituents from Stratford and Bow at the climate coalition lobby in Parliament. Mary told me that she was there to lobby for an end to our dependency on fossil fuels. She was there for her four grandchildren—for their futures.
My constituents are clear: the time to act is now. We must put the people on our planet before the polluting industries. My constituency is home to an Earthshot prize-winning company, Notpla. The last time I mentioned Notpla in Parliament, it had single-handedly removed 21 million items of single-use plastic—and counting—using its innovative seaweed-based alternative; today, that number has risen to 26 million items. The ambition exists, but we all need to seize this moment. The cost of inaction is mass climate displacement, environmental destruction and worsening global instability.
I thank the Minister and the Government for their continued commitment to the UK’s global leadership in pushing for an ambitious treaty. I join Members from across the House in calling for all member states to agree to legally binding measures to address the production and consumption of plastic, and finally to deliver a treaty that meets the scale of the crisis for our planet.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing forward this valuable and important debate.
I used to work as a Wiltshire councillor on the issue of plastic recycling. My constituency, like all our constituencies, can be blighted by the sight of waste plastic by the roadside. It is clear that bolder action is needed to tackle the sheer amount of plastic pollution that we have created both at home and abroad. That is why we must join and support the global plastics treaty in an international effort to reduce plastic waste, to promote sustainable, eco-friendly production, and to protect our oceans and wildlife for future generations.
In the spirit of embracing such bold action, we must embrace innovation. Chemical recycling, for instance, gives us a way to break down plastics into their fundamental building blocks, creating a new plastic circular economy. Mura Technology is just one of a number of companies doing that today in the UK. However, such innovation needs to be paid for. On the basis of the “polluter pays” principle, plastics producers must be taxed so that the problem they produce can be fixed.
For users of plastic products—whether it is the film used to cover our cucumbers, or the plastics that contain our crisps or wrap our chocolate bars—a small tax needs to be added to ensure that wrappers do not become a blight on the environment. We created the problem, and I believe we can fix it.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
A number of my constituents in South Derbyshire have written to me, deeply distressed over the crisis of plastic pollution in South Derbyshire’s waterways, including in the River Trent and the Foremark and Staunton Harold reservoirs, and in our farmland, where farmers—already dealing with increasing floods due to the climate crisis—are left to deal with waste. To give credit where it is due, my constituents are also pleased to see responsible actions to reduce plastic use. At Bearded Theory, a music festival held at Catton Hall in Walton-on-Trent, the organisers use only reusable polypropylene cups that are taken off site to be washed and reused year after year.
Pollution is a global problem. There is not one corner of the world that has not been affected by the over-production of plastics—microplastics are ubiquitous; they have even been found in Antarctica—yet plastic production is projected to triple by 2060.
Only 9% of plastic globally is recycled. Most of the UK’s plastic is incinerated, with the number of incinerators surging from 38 to 52 in the past five years. Incineration is the dirtiest form of energy production in the UK, contributing to greenhouse gases that heat our planet and release toxic fumes that have serious and harmful health impacts. In South Derbyshire, we are expecting the result of an appeal into the proposed Swadlincote incinerator at Stanton by the end of July. I stand with my constituents in opposing the building of a new incinerator, but we also need to reduce our waste. The east midlands is the second worst region in the country for waste, with Derbyshire the worst offender. If we had less plastic, we would have less waste, and there would be no justification at all for any new incinerators.
Ahead of the next round of talks on the UN plastics treaty in Geneva in August, I urge the Government to continue to be ambitious in cutting plastic production. We will fail future generations if we accept a watered-down agreement. I call on the Government to introduce immediately a UK-wide moratorium on new incineration capacity and to secure a strong global target to cut plastic production at the UN plastics treaty negotiations.
Public support for action could not be stronger. More than 220,000 people across the UK took part in the big plastic count last year—a remarkable display of citizen science, which laid bare just how pervasive and persistent plastic is in our daily lives. More than 600,000 people have signed Greenpeace UK’s petition calling for a strong, meaningful treaty. That is a public mandate that this House cannot ignore.
As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to act both for the constituents whom we represent today and for future generations to come. Plastic pollution chokes our oceans, poisons wildlife and breaks down into microplastics that we find in our soil, our food, and our bodies. I urge the Government to reject half measures. Let us seize this moment to put people and planet before plastic. Let us use this opportunity for green job investment and move further towards a circular economy that necessitates less packaging and secures a legacy that future generations will thank us for, instead of the one that leaves so many young people fearful for their futures. We cannot let them down.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate. Let me highlight one point that he made about the circular economy. He said that if we get the regulation and the incentives right, it would be good not only for the environment, but for business and the economy. That is an important point to keep emphasising.
I would like to use the short amount of time that I have to talk about how we can connect this global issue to our local communities. Let me start with the global problem. Every year, more than 12 million tonnes of plastic are dumped in our oceans—I did hear 11 million tonnes from my right hon. Friend. Whichever it is, it is obviously on a huge scale. This is not just a statistic; it represents an utter crisis—one that affects marine life, ecosystems, and, ultimately, us as well.
To many people, a UN treaty might seem a bit abstract and remote. Some will even go as far as saying that it is not worth the debate time in this Chamber because it is too hard to imagine the average person bringing it up on the doorstep. However, I do not think that is right, because it matters and the population have shown that they care about this issue.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the popularity of Attenborough’s TV documentary and how that has ignited people’s interest. I certainly have this issue raised time and again with me. People have also noticed the impact on their local environment. Unlike my right hon. Friend, I do not have oceans anywhere near my London constituency, but I have a beautiful chalk stream that runs all the way through it. People see the litter and they care about it, and they see the plastic damage in particular. We have introduced new monitoring systems to understand the damage that some of these microplastics can do. People are incredibly proud of their local surroundings, and it is not too big a step for them to think about the oceans across the world when they are thinking about their local area.
As has already been mentioned, not just adults are starting to care more. This is a totemic issue for the next generation. I recently received a bundle of passionate letters from a year 4 class at Culvers House primary school. I say passionate because, at times, I think they were a little harsh on me. I will not take it personally, because I think they were directing their anger at politicians in general. They were at pains to point out that we were not doing enough or moving fast enough. They were quite clear about their demands, and they went into a lot of detail. They told me about their concern for our oceans, for the turtles and fish that are harmed by plastic, and for the future of the planet. Reading their letters one afternoon, I found them pretty powerful and it reminded me of the duty that we all have to act now.
When we talk about the global plastics treaty, it is important that we keep making it relevant to our local communities. It is clearly a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a legally binding agreement that tackles plastic processing at every stage of the lifecycle. For the agreement to work, it has to be ambitious, enforceable, and supported by everybody. Taking the public with us on this issue is going to get more difficult. There are people even in this Chamber who will push back against it, saying that it is a waste of time, that it is a problem to be solved by others elsewhere, but we will have to keep building that support.
In doing so, we have to reverse where the pressure is brought to bear. For a long time, the pressure has been on all of us to be more responsible consumers. Consumers have played their part. They have been willing to put up with recycling yoghurt pots, washing them out in the sink. They have taken on wooden forks and spoons. They have even put up with paper straws. They have done so, despite the pain that all of those things can be compared with what we had before. They have played their part and now it is our turn in this place to put the pressure back on to producers to make sure that they play their part as well. That does not mean that we should not listen to producers when they highlight problems with the schemes we create—for instance, the Government’s extended producer responsibility schemes, which are meant to introduce financial responsibility across the full lifecycle of products. There are sometimes issues with the implementation of schemes. I am hearing from pubs and the hospitality industry about the undue burden that can be placed on small businesses, and we need to work out mechanisms for correcting unintended consequences of such policies.
John Lamont
The hon. Member is making a very good speech. I agree with him about the need to take the public and business with us. In Scotland we had a real challenge with the deposit return scheme that the Scottish Government tried to impose, because business was up in arms about it, and it was going to impact on the internal market. Does he agree that that is an example of where it can go very badly wrong if we do not take the public and business with us?
Bobby Dean
I do agree; if we close our ears, we will miss these problems, frustrate the public and lose their support. If we listen hard, we can fix the schemes and rescue the action we want to take in this place to help the whole environment. If we do not do that, the other side will win the argument and shut down the sort of initiatives we need to see. We need to keep listening as we introduce these schemes and make sure that the public and small businesses do not feel fatigued by them.
I hope I am making clear that this is not just about treaties and targets but about protecting our rivers and oceans across the world. It is about linking to our communities and maintaining their support and listening to the voices of young people, like those in year 4 at Culvers House primary school. I want to end with something that I have definitely stolen from a work experience student this week. She said to me that we are burdening future generations with plastic debt, and it is about time we started paying it back.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing forward this important debate. Plastic pollution is a global problem that requires international co-ordination, and I think everyone in this House is agreed on that. It is a serious issue and, as is the case with many Members, it is one that my constituents really care about, particularly young people, who have contacted me about this issue over recent weeks.
This UK Government have already set out plans to end our throwaway society and stop the avalanche of rubbish that is filling our streets, rivers and oceans. If I may, I want to talk briefly about some actions that the Welsh Labour Government have taken to tackle plastic pollution. Wales became the first nation in the UK to ban single-use plastics in 2023 as part of the Government’s effort to tackle the climate and nature crisis and reduce plastic pollution. Items such as polystyrene cups, balloon sticks and cotton bud sticks can no longer be sold or supplied in Wales.
The Welsh Government have also announced plans to go further and ban wet wipes that contain plastic. That has a target date of December 2026. I am delighted that the Welsh Government have just agreed to accelerate plans for a deposit return scheme, as it will enable a scheme to be brought forward on a UK-wide basis at the same time. Wales is ranked second in the world for recycling rates, which we are all very proud of.
I want to put on record my thanks to some of the organisations in my constituency that have done a stellar job in raising awareness of issues around plastic pollution and tackling behaviour change. I thank the Plastic Free Communities initiative in Betws-y-Coed and the villages around there, and I thank the North Wales Wildlife Trust, which organises an annual beach clean-up. Trash Free Trails has also done a lot of work in this area.
I also want to mention Bangor University, where the Plastic Research Centre of Wales is based, which has done a lot of work on our microplastics. As mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), microplastics are a huge issue. They have even been found on a remote lake near the top of Yr Wyddfa—Mount Snowdon. It is a super topic that the centre is dedicated to carrying out research on.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the work of community groups such as the Three Towns Clean Up Crew in my constituency and Think About Plastic Arran are crucial to fighting the blight of plastics pollution and the terrible effects it is having on marine life and the wider environment?
Claire Hughes
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Community groups across the country, whether in Wales, Scotland or England, all play a vital role in raising awareness and cleaning up beaches. That is really important for wildlife, which is often the victim of plastic pollution.
A piece of research published by Bangor University this year showed that the combined effect of ocean warming and microplastics pollution could severely damage marine ecosystems in particular, with significant consequences not just for the climate but food security. Professor Christian Dunn, co-author of this research, said:
“This is a wake-up call, but also a call to action.”
We are all agreed that we need urgent global action to guard against plastic pollution and that we need to work together to find solutions. I look forward to the Minister’s comments, particularly ahead of the vital meeting that will happen in Geneva next month.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I am delighted to hear about all the work going on in the hon. Lady’s community. That is also happening across the country; Dawlish Against Plastic and Plastic Free Newton Abbot are in my constituency However, the Marine Conservation Society wrote to me to say that plastic pollution on UK beaches rose by 9.5% between 2023 and 2024. Indeed, in Devon, an average of 103 items of plastic are picked up on every 100 metres of beach. Does she agree that we must deal with the situation not only in our communities but internationally?
Claire Hughes
I agree. Perhaps the Minister could address that issue when he responds to the debate.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I make my comments in the context of my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate. It is on an issue that resonates strongly with many residents in Edinburgh South West—it is not an overstatement to say that I was inundated with emails on it.
Plastics are everywhere. As we have already heard, they are in construction, healthcare, clothing and furniture. It is estimated that about 14 million tonnes of microplastics are lying on the ocean floor right now, and the fashion industry is among the biggest sources.
My former colleague at Heriot-Watt University in my constituency, Dr Mark Hartl, was part of a team who found microplastics in green mussels sold in traditional seafood markets in Jakarta. They estimated that the human intake of microplastics from mussel ingestion ranged from 9,000 to 12,000 microplastic items per person per year. Mark was also part of a team that identified microplastics in seagrass in the Deerness Sound area of the constituency of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. It was found adhering to the blades of the seagrass in some cases.
Elsewhere in Heriot-Watt University, a small team headed by Dr Lisa Macintyre, an associate professor of textiles at the university’s school of textiles and design in Galashiels in the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who is also in his place, has overseen painstaking research to co-develop the world’s first visual fibre fragmentation scale. That is really important work, because fashion designers—I am not sure how many of them we have in the Chamber—can use it when selecting fabrics for their designs, to understand how likely it is that those small fibres will fall off.
We know that clothing is not the only problem. Global plastic production is set to triple over the next three decades, as we have heard, but our waste management structures are ill prepared to deal with that looming threat. It is therefore right that we take the plastics treaty seriously.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my horror that global plastic production will double by 2050? He said that his constituents in Edinburgh South West feel strongly about this; I can assure him that people across Edinburgh do. Will he join me in calling for a global plastics treaty that the Government should take forward as a priority?
Dr Arthur
I agree with my hon. Friend. I know that it is important to his constituency, because I can remember how people were really concerned about plastic cotton buds getting washed up on Portobello beach. Thankfully, through changes, that is now much rarer, but it is still an issue.
In Scotland alone it is estimated that we generate around 300,000 tonnes of plastic packaging items annually and, as of 2021, we were recycling only about 4,500 tonnes of that. Each month, Scotland exports about 100 tonnes of waste to different parts of the UK and right across the world. That is an export that I am not proud of. Poor planning on the part of the Scottish Government means that, by the start of next year, 100 tonnes of waste a day will be moving from Scotland to England to be processed.
That is clearly not sustainable, but it seems that we have become all too comfortable recycling being a matter of “out of sight, out of mind.” We have to remember that once we lose sight of our waste, in many cases we also lose control of what is happening to it. Many residents write to me about that.
Even if we were to develop the processing capacity at home, dealing with plastics will always be a problem so long as our consumption remains high, so a much stronger focus needs to be placed on reuse and developing a circular economy, as we heard earlier, not just in Scotland but throughout the UK. In my constituency, I am proud to say that I have several organisations that promote reuse, ranging from sharing libraries to repair and reuse charities. I recently spent an afternoon touring one such venture called The Forge, a pop-up community maker space, based in renovated shipping containers on a site in Fountainbridge, next to the canal and just along from my office. It provides tools, facilities and training to people from all walks of life, including students, artists, do-it-yourself enthusiasts and homeless people. When I visited, there was a young man making a hat block. I thought it was for him to store his hat on, but he intended to make a pirate hat for a pirate festival, of all things. I tried to google where the pirate festival was, but it turns out that pirate festivals are quite common, so it could have been almost anywhere.
Dr Arthur
Thank you.
As well as the hat block, I also saw tables, chests of drawers and even kitchen utensils being made. We could drastically cut our overreliance on plastics if we had more such initiatives; they empower us to create our own long-lasting alternatives, reusing materials and developing lifelong skills in the process. Another charity in Edinburgh South West—one that is under a little bit of pressure just now—is Four Square’s Edinburgh Furniture Initiative. It largely sells used furniture and household items, and it uses its income—a non-trivial amount of money—to help solve Edinburgh’s housing crisis. It is an absolutely fantastic project.
As I noted, the plastic consumption and processing economies operate across borders, making this an issue that requires a truly joined-up approach. That is why I fully support a deposit return scheme that covers the entirety of the UK; I look forward to its introduction in 2027. That may not be quick enough for some people, and I respect that, but we have to balance the pressing need for change with the economic reality for small businesses, which will have to adapt to the new regulations. As others have said, if hon. Members want to see how not to do this, they should just look to the Scottish Government. Its scheme was an absolute embarrassment. Proper consultation is important, and I think Scotland has shown that.
On a global level, I am proud that the Government have fully recognised the importance of tackling plastic pollution through internationally binding treaties. At the UN talks held in South Korea last year, we supported a draft text on legally binding global reductions in plastic production, and on phasing out certain harmful chemicals and single-use plastics. Unfortunately, a consensus could not be reached, largely due to the usual suspects—China and Russia among them—all pushing back against those targets. The negotiations will remain highly contentious as long as those countries, whose economies are heavily reliant on plastic, want to hang on to it.
Having read Dr Lindner’s evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee earlier this week, I think an inclusive two-tier model could go some way towards resolving those disagreements, if we cannot get those countries to be as bold and ambitious as I hope the UK is. Some may see that as a compromise that lets major polluters off the hook, but I believe that international co-operation is vital, and similar models have worked well in getting those nations signed up to some kind of baseline target. It would help break the deadlock, and allow high-ambition states like, I hope, the UK to set and hit bolder targets, leading by example. Something is better than nothing. We must make progress on this issue, and a global treaty is essential if we want to protect our planet and the health of future generations.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom I served in the shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team for three years, will respond to the debate; I look forward to that.
With less than one month to go until the next round of the UN plastic treaty talks in Geneva, we must ensure that the international and domestic focus keeps us on track. We must also ensure that the UK delegation’s priorities are clear, so I thank everybody for taking part in today’s debate. Keeping on track is difficult when the number of fossil fuel lobbyists present at the talks rises in each and every round. Those lobbyists seek to derail the talks, and to prevent any limits to plastic production being agreed. We have seen this before with the tobacco industry. We cannot allow private interests that are damaging to health to take precedence, and we cannot allow the mismanagement of plastics, plastic leakage into the environment and the associated colossal greenhouse gas emissions.
Towards the end of my time on the Environmental Audit Committee, we undertook an inquiry on plastic waste. This was in 2021-22. In the three years since it was published, little has changed. Recycling plastic is difficult. Globally, only 9% of plastic has ever been recycled. Furthermore, the carbon emissions associated with plastics outstrip those from the entire global aviation and shipping industries. Approximately 50% of the plastic packaging waste generated in the UK is exported for recycling—or so we think. That is what we call the UK’s plastic recycling capacity gap. The UK has one of the highest per capita plastic waste levels in the world. Cheap single-use packaging is incentivised over unpackaged products, or investment into reuse and recycling and wider circular economy initiatives, which the Government are seeking to champion. On the EAC, we found that much exported waste was just being dumped, with no prospect of recycling. People diligently recycling at home in the UK would be rightly appalled if they saw what was happening to the plastic they put in their bins —green bins in Leeds—for recycling.
To support our UK delegation and address this issue head-on, the UK should take a lead on the international stage in securing global, legally binding targets to cut plastic production. Our recycling and waste treatment industry is hugely supportive of the proposed treaty set out at the discussions, and supports a binding target to reduce global virgin plastic production. The Government need to support the policy measures necessary to make that workable in practice. If the Government develop a clear road map for implementing the policies required to deliver a domestic circular economy for plastics, they could set a binding, viable target for reducing virgin plastic production. They could also set out clear policy interventions to stimulate end-market demand for recycled plastics, and create the conditions for major new investment in plastics sorting and reprocessing infrastructure, so that we end the plastics recycling capacity gap in the UK, create jobs in plastics reprocessing, ensure quality, and ensure that plastic is being recycled, not just dumped. That would be a Great British plastic initiative.
The UK exports approximately 50% of its plastic packaging waste. We must set out proposals for clamping down on illegitimate exports of plastic waste being dumped overseas. While the vast majority of plastic waste exported from the UK is for reprocessing, which is managed in an environmentally sound manner, there have been instances in the past few years where illegitimate exports of low-grade plastics have been dumped or burned overseas. A robust and properly resourced regulator could be empowered to enforce the right standards and clamp down on illegal waste exports. We must end plastic dumping.
The UK Government have already implemented strong steps to improve the quantity and quality of plastics sent for recycling. However, Governments need to address fossil fuels’ influence in politics, particularly in the international plastic treaty negotiations. That is the only way we can deliver a circular economy for plastics. There needs to be sustainable long-term demand for any recycled product created. Otherwise, we will carry on with the unsustainable practice of using virgin plastics, and the fossil fuel industry will continue to have an international influence on our UN processes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed. Rarely do I have the privilege of being part of a debate in which there is such consensus, though we have not heard from the Conservative Front Benchers yet. I assume that there is broad consensus. That should give the Government a strong hand, allowing it to be a tough negotiator in the global plastics treaty talks.
Global plastic production and waste have doubled in the last 20 years—most of what I am saying has already been said; that is the beauty of winding-up speeches. According to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), the figure stands at 12 million tonnes of plastic. I have another statistic for him: in 2023, the BBC reported that there are more than 170 trillion pieces of plastic floating in the world’s oceans. That is no way to treat our precious planet. Indeed, it puts countless species at risk of extinction.
The global plastics treaty offers a unique opportunity for a global, United Nations-led treaty, through which all countries are held to a high common standard on plastic consumption. The treaty would create a level playing field, incentivise and support international action, and forge a clear path toward a future free from plastic pollution. We Liberal Democrats have been instrumental in the campaign to finalise the treaty, and are looking towards next month’s negotiations in Geneva, in which we will, I hope, reach a breakthrough.
It is not just in this Chamber that there is great consensus on this issue. The majority of the UK public, the majority of member state Governments, the business community and civil society are all pushing in the same direction. More than 100 countries support a legally binding global target to cut plastic production. The UK must retain its ambition on this key issue.
I am one of 90 MPs who have signed Greenpeace’s pledge, which states:
“I support a strong global target to cut plastic production”.
Last year, a quarter of a million people took part in the big plastic count, an initiative run by Greenpeace and Everyday Plastic to count each piece of plastic and show the scale of the crisis in the UK. We have heard from many Members about how concerned the public are about this issue, and about their constituents taking part in clean-up actions.
Greenpeace is rightly concerned that, in each further round of talks, more fossil fuel lobbyists seek to derail negotiations and prevent any limits to plastic production from being agreed. The Government should look closely at precedents for how to prevent the influence of lobbyists over international agreements. The framework convention on tobacco control, for example, recognised the lobbying tactics of the tobacco industry and required parties to
“act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests”.
Governments across the globe must address the influence of fossil fuels in politics, and put the interests of people before polluters.
We must also address funding. A sustainable treaty that is built to last for generations must include a strong, dedicated, multilateral fund. Without a substantial financial package, the treaty will impose obligations on countries, particularly those in the global south, with which they will struggle to comply. The reality of the climate crisis globally means that countries will have to find money to clean up the mess that polluters have created. The Government should look for ways to place that financial burden mainly on the plastics industry, which has made billions in profits. I recognise that it is important to work with industries, but this is ultimately about the “polluter pays” principle—though, of course, we need to bring industry with us, to create practical and workable solutions that do not flop.
I will touch on one issue that has not been mentioned, but which a constituent has raised with me: plastic pollution from chewing gum. I was alerted to it by Keir Carnie, one of my Bath constituents, the founder of plant-based chewing gum company Nuud Gum. Many of us are completely unaware that chewing gum is, in fact, a single-use plastic. It commonly contains synthetic polymers—plastic materials derived from fossil fuels, and found in products such as carrier bags, glue and car tyres. In the UK, over 4 billion pieces of plastic gum are consumed annually, the majority of which end up as non- biodegradable plastic pollution. That gum breaks down into microplastics, contaminating soil, waterways and wildlife. Gum pollution is also one of the UK’s most pervasive types of litter, and costs local councils over £60 million per year in removal efforts. I am sure that every one of us remembers an annoying moment when we had to pick off a piece of gum from under our shoe.
Despite its similarities to other banned single-use plastics such as straws and cotton buds, chewing gum has evaded regulation. As with single-use vapes, the UK has a great opportunity to lead again in environmental and public health protection. I urge the Government to look into this issue, and I am happy to put them in contact with my constituent, who could provide evidence and support on what can be done.
We are at a pivotal moment. The scale and urgency of the plastic pollution crisis demands bold, co-ordinated global action. The treaty must be not only ambitious but fair, with proper funding and protections against vested interests. The UK must show leadership in the upcoming talks, championing a strong new global treaty that tackles plastic pollution at every stage of its lifecycle, so that future generations can enjoy the beautiful planet that we still enjoy—just about—today.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I begin my remarks by acknowledging an interest in this area: my family own and operate a plastic recycling business, though I make it clear to the House that I am not directly involved in the management of the business, nor do I have any financial interest in it.
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this really important debate. All Members have made hugely valuable contributions. The right hon. Member spoke about the importance of responsibility for not only stakeholders but wider industry and, indeed, policymakers. In the light of the upcoming negotiations on the global plastics treaty, it is an important time to have this debate.
Before coming to the potential treaty, it is worth taking a moment to consider some of the domestic context to our national relationship with plastic, and that brings me on to the other contributions. The hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) rightly raised concerns about microplastics, which have been mentioned by many Members in this House. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about the challenges of plastic litter and plastic waste in his constituency, and he rightly called on the Government to hold China to account in their global discussions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) rightly raised the importance that young people place on reducing plastic usage, and he mentioned the concerns and letters that have been submitted to him by various schools in his constituency, as did the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). The hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), who is not in her place, raised the importance of banning single-use vapes and the work of local businesses and organisations in her constituency—including ABBA Voyage, which I have seen, and I noted its work to reduce plastic waste.
The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) focused on regulation and the importance of this place having an influence on the global plastics treaty. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) rightly raised her staunch objection to the incineration of plastic waste, and I agree with her. In my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, a planning application for an incinerator was approved by Labour-run Bradford council. I have been staunchly against that, and I wish her well in her local campaign.
The hon. Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) talked about research undertaken by Professor Christian Dunn at Bangor University, which I hope the Minister will look at. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) and his neighbour, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), talked about the importance of progressing conversations on the global plastics treaty and the need for a greater focus on the concerns of their constituents, raised today by the strong voice of their Edinburgh representatives.
The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) talked about the importance of reducing virgin plastic production and the need for a real focus on increasing recycling rates. Finally, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) referenced the importance of local groups that drive forward change.
For decades, we have used plastic in ever more roles and in ever greater amounts. Indeed, plastics have replaced many everyday items that once were made from paper, glass or metal. Plastic may have been the way forward then, but that does not mean it need be the way forward now for everything. For that reason, I welcome the important steps that were taken by the previous Conservative Government. Plastic straws, drink stirrers and single-use plastic bags are all notorious for polluting our natural environment, and it was therefore right that efforts were taken to ban them.
In fact, the plastic bag charge has successfully seen plastic bag usage reduced by 98%. Other restrictions on single-use plastic cutlery, cups, trays, plates and many other items are now in force, with the ban having an important effect on reducing residual waste. Residual waste is key. We know that the UK produces a huge amount of plastic waste—as much as the second most per capita globally—but we also know that, due to strong environmental protections, very little of that waste is now handled irresponsibly. Of course, there is always more to be done.
For comparison, 80% of the plastics in the ocean originate from Asia, compared with just 0.4% from Europe. Reducing residual waste must be the key pillar of any international treaty on plastic waste. The previous Government understood that when they legislated in the Environment Act 2021 to halve residual waste, and I trust that the Minister will be able to reassure us that it remains the key goal of this Government.
Bobby Dean
The hon. Gentleman is talking well about the general state of plastic in the world, but we are debating the global plastics treaty. Can he confirm whether his party supports the UK being a signatory?
Robbie Moore
I will come on to those points, but I first wanted to outline the nature of the debate, because it is important to recognise the contributions that have been made.
We know that reducing our plastic use is vital for two key reasons. The first is the impact on the environment. It is estimated that as many as 1 million seabirds die each year as a result of entanglement in plastic. In fact, at current rates of increase, the weight of plastic in the oceans will outweigh all fish by 2050. Plastics also pollute our inland waterways, having a detrimental impact on nearby areas, especially when we consider the long-term chemical effects of decomposition.
The second reason is the growing body of research showing that long-term exposure to plastics is bad for our health—particularly microplastics, as the hon. Member for Stafford mentioned. Everything from hair loss to fatigue, heart conditions and strokes have been linked to microplastics. What is most concerning is that, while the health links may not yet be fully understood, we know that microplastics persist for centuries, not only in the environment but in our bodies. As we use more plastic through our lives, these levels build, potentially increasing the risks.
That is precisely why securing an effective global framework to reduce plastic use is key. The resolutions passed in 2022 were an encouraging first step and show clearly that countries across the world recognise the challenge and wish to tackle it. Crucially, this global support for progress on plastics is key to ensuring that standards are raised uniformly and that the risk that plastic waste is simply offshored is significantly reduced. We simply must not offshore our responsibility.
Equally, we must be realistic about how we manage plastics. We must recognise that unilaterally banning or heavily restricting many types of plastic will leave us uncompetitive on the global stage. We must work with other nations and bring those that are sceptical along with us. That scepticism is precisely why we must use the negotiations on this treaty to take these matters forward, and to make them concrete.
We cannot simply have goals or aspirations. We must have verifiable targets that can be measured so that we can hold organisations and stakeholders to account. Naturally, we should then expect all signatories to fulfil those obligations. I hope the Government are able to confirm that they will push for the inclusion of these measures in the treaty as they continue to negotiate, to ensure compliance by ourselves and other partners.
We must continue to work not only on the global plastics treaty but to improve our plastic waste record at home. We must continue to invest in our sorting and volume capacity within the recycling sector to ensure that the amount of recycling continues to go up, and to reduce the amount going to landfill.
Plastic pollution is not going away. Many plastics will be with us for thousands of years, so it is vital that we act to stop the flow of waste into our environment. When discussions are reopened next month in Geneva, I hope that the Minister will be in attendance and that the Government will be successful in securing the robust and practical treaty that we all hope to see.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate, so ably introduced by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). He, along with every Member from across the Chamber who made a contribution, pointed out the seriousness of the issue and the urgent need for action.
Plastic pollution is one of the biggest environmental issues that we face today. Once hailed as a miracle of modern invention, plastic is now one of our planet’s most persistent threats. Its greatest strength—durability—has become its darkest flaw. These materials are designed to last and do just that—for centuries. They do not simply disappear, but break down into tiny fragments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) so ably pointed out, and these microplastics invade our beaches, rivers, fields and even our bodies. From the depths of the oceans to the cells of living creatures, plastic pollution is everywhere.
For too long, plastic has littered our oceans and threatened our wildlife. Amounts of plastic entering the ocean are predicted to triple by 2040 compared with 2016. That is unacceptable. Plastic pollution does not respect boundaries. We urgently need to agree a plastics treaty to enable global action to address this, so with that in mind, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and his Committee for their recent inquiry into the treaty, and for their letter of recommendations for the forthcoming negotiations on an international treaty to end plastic pollution. It is a very timely input, and I read it with interest as we finalised our preparations for the negotiations. I look forward to responding more fully in due course, but the Committee can be assured that this Government are taking every step to ensure that we secure an ambitious and effective global plastics pollution treaty. This will be both a tool for moving towards a circular economy and an opportunity to showcase some of the domestic action that the UK has taken.
A circular economy is key to delivering our Government’s plan for change—to grow the economy, increase environmental resilience and improve the lives of hard-working people around the country. That is why our circular economy taskforce has brought together experts from across Government, industry, academia and civil society to develop the first circular economy strategy for England. It will include a road map on chemicals and plastics, deliver growth and fundamentally shift our relationship with the goods that we use every day, ending our throwaway society and stopping the avalanche of rubbish that is filling up our high streets, countryside and oceans, making reuse and repair the norm, and ending the throwaway society. A circular economy is an opportunity to grow our economy and make it more resilient, to improve lives in every part of the United Kingdom, and to protect our environment for generations to come.
Domestically, the Government are already working with the devolved Governments to legislate across the UK for the ban on wet wipes containing plastic. From 1 June this year, the sale and supply of single-use vapes was banned across the UK. The deposit return scheme for single-use plastic and metal drinks containers in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland will launch in October 2027, which will drive our efforts to stop litter filling up our streets, rivers and oceans. I am grateful for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) about the story in Scotland.
Additionally, the extended producer responsibility for packaging came into effect on 1 January this year. It will move the full cost of dealing with household packaging waste away from local taxpayers and on to the packaging producers themselves. I was pleased to hear the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) about the great successes of the Labour Government, working with people in Wales, on issues around recycling.
Bobby Dean
The EPR scheme is obviously welcome and Liberal Democrat Members know the intention, but the scheme appears to have some unintended effects. The scheme will not only impact producers but small businesses, hospitality businesses in particular, who have raised their concerns. Will the Minister continue to listen to those businesses and try to adjust the scheme, so it works for them as well?
Daniel Zeichner
Of course—absolutely. We are always working in collaboration, and we will do everything we can to ensure that. It is an important principle that has been established, and I am determined to ensure that it is successful.
Next month, at the resumed fifth session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee, we will have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to agree an ambitious and effective international agreement to end plastic pollution. We want a treaty that tackles the full life cycle of plastics and promotes a circular economy. The UK has been a key advocate for an effective treaty throughout and is a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution—a coalition of nearly 70 countries from across all regions of the world.
At INC5, the UK joined over 80 other ambitious countries to make clear the weight of support for an ambitious treaty. Recently, at the UN ocean conference in Nice, we joined nearly 100 countries in signing the Nice wake-up call for an ambitious international treaty to end plastic pollution. Those demonstrate the commitment to reaching an agreement at INC5.2 in August and the weight of support for an ambitious treaty. I am proud of the leadership role that the UK has taken in the negotiations, and we continue to take significant action to drive ambition and demonstrate leadership.
John Lamont
The Minister is right to highlight the leading role that the UK has played in this matter, under both the current Government and, in particular, the previous Government. The last negotiations and progress towards the treaty came to a halt because Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia basically imposed a time limit, which meant that the treaty could not be agreed. What discussions are taking place behind the scenes to ensure that countries like those three will not do the same and stall our agreement on the treaty this time?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s well-informed intervention. I assure him that negotiations and discussions are ongoing, and we are determined to ensure that we get a good outcome.
As well as leading early work to develop criteria for problematic plastic products since the second negotiating session, INC2, the UK is co-leading work with Chile to progress discussions on product design, and co-leading work with Panama on releases and leakages of plastic.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I am sure the Minister is aware that His Excellency the Ambassador of Ecuador is the chairman of the UN intergovernmental negotiating committee on plastics. Is the Minister working with him? His Excellency is in London and doing incredible work in this area, and I hope that our Government are co-operating with him. He is also doing work toward and looking forward to the day when Ecuador can join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.
Daniel Zeichner
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working with all interested parties to ensure that we make progress on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) recently co-hosted a ministerial event at the UN ocean conference to bring together Ministers from a range of countries, representing all regions and ambition levels, to discuss the most challenging issues.
As we look forward to August, it is clear that divergent views remain on key issues such as phasing out problematic products, how we approach the production of plastics and financing the treaty. However, it is our sense that the majority of countries want to reach an agreement at INC5.2, and there has been substantial discussion of how the treaty addresses plastic production. Many parties believe that plastic production is outside the scope of the agreement. However, the UK has been clear that the treaty should address the full life cycle of plastic, including sustainable production and consumption.
At INC5.2, we will continue to work on that basis, to ensure that the treaty sends a signal to spur investment in the market for recycled plastic and to collect the data we need to ensure that the treaty works. A provision on problematic plastic products will be one of the core treaty provisions, and the UK has worked with Brazil to carry out technical work to support that provision. The UK has also supported the call from 95 countries in Busan for a clear, legally binding obligation to phase out the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern in plastics.
Good progress was made at INC5 on text that provides a basis for further discussions. The key will be striking the right balance between national measures and harmonised global approaches and ensuring that measures are based on science. We are working with Chile to promote an effective provision on the design of plastic products to keep them in use for longer and make them easier to recycle. We recognise the importance of mobilising support for the countries most in need of agreement’s implementation. That is an essential element of an effective treaty. The UK supports the use of the Global Environment Facility to support the implementation of the treaty. That will avoid further fragmentation of the environmental financial architecture and allow for synergies with funding for climate and nature.
As we have heard, plastic pollution is a broad issue, with a huge variety of actors across the plastics value chain. To mobilise the resources needed at scale, we must draw on an equally broad range of funding sources—public and private, domestic and international. The UK is the largest donor to the Global Plastic Action Partnership, contributing some £20.5 million. That partnership brings together Governments, businesses and civil society to tackle plastic pollution and increase investment in the circular economy in countries eligible for official development assistance. To end plastic pollution, we need all actors in the plastics value chain to act, and we need to bring everyone along with us. That includes the marginalised, undervalued and unrecognised waste pickers, most of whom are women. They handle more than half the world’s plastic waste for recycling, so it is really important that their voices are heard.
It is essential that the treaty we agree is responsive to change and emerging evidence—it cannot operate effectively if one member has a de facto veto. As such, we need effective decision-making processes, including the possibility of voting on conference of the parties decisions and amendments to annexes once all options for achieving consensus have been exhausted.
One thing is clear: addressing the problem of plastic pollution requires a joint effort between Government, industry, academia and civil society. We have partnered with the Ocean Plastics Leadership Network to run the UK treaty dialogues ahead of each round of negotiations. Those dialogues have included actors at all stages of the plastics value chain, as well as academia and environmental non-governmental organisations. They have helped us to understand diverse views on the treaty, which in turn have informed our approach to negotiations.
In June, my ministerial colleague and hon. Friend, the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, hosted a business roundtable to discuss how the private sector can support an ambitious plastic pollution treaty. It was the second plastics treaty business roundtable, and brought together businesses from across the plastics value chain. Those roundtables were attended by His Excellency Ambassador Vayas, the INC chair. Twenty leading businesses have now signed a statement calling for an effective treaty, and four non-private sector organisations have endorsed that statement.
The Government are also clear that any treaty must be informed by science, and I noted the comments made on that topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran). In that regard, we are deeply concerned to hear of the threats faced by scientists—an issue that has been raised by a number of contributors to this debate. Those threats are unacceptable. We remain steadfast in our commitment to the multilateral system and to an open, transparent and inclusive process.
This has been a timely debate, as we approach final negotiations in Geneva. While there are many challenges to overcome, a vast amount of work is under way to find solutions to the many remaining issues. I heard the strong calls from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and I am confident that we can secure a robust and effective treaty. That is what the UK team will be pushing for in Geneva. Again, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for securing this debate.
Mr Carmichael
I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate—it has been quite a remarkable exercise and an enormously valuable one. Every contribution has been truly excellent. We have heard from Members representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales and England; we have not had anybody from Northern Ireland, but I should place on the record that I have seen on the Annunciator that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has been in Westminster Hall this afternoon. It has also been noteworthy for the fact that, at a time of year when we all get a bit tired and scratchy, we have had remarkable consensus and a good-natured debate.
In closing, I want to address myself to not just the people in the Chamber, but those who might be watching from outside. The evidence session that our Select Committee held last week was not an easy one to pull together, especially when it came to bringing in corporate interests. Coca-Cola turned up and, to its credit, had a decent story to tell. INEOS turned up, and might or might not have had a good story to tell—it could not quite remember. The people who we really wanted to get were from Unilever, but apparently everybody in Unilever had gone to India for the day, so they could not appear before the Committee. We will return to this; they can run, but they cannot hide.
In the past, we have seen not just the national, but the corporate influences that have stood in the way of progress. If those corporate interests are watching our proceedings today, they should hear a very loud and clear message that we are watching them. If they again stand in the way of making progress on something that matters to this House and to the people who send us here, we will see them, and there will be a commercial price for them to pay for standing in the way of progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Global Plastics Treaty.