Global Plastic Pollution Treaty
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden Excerpts(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they are supporting progress on the global plastic pollution treaty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK is a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution and a strong proponent for an ambitious global treaty. At the negotiations in August, the UK worked closely with our partners to push for strong global measures, effective measures of implementation and the ability for the treaty to develop over time. We are therefore very disappointed that no agreement was reached, but the UK remains committed to reaching an agreement when negotiations resume.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. As she says, in light of the rejection of any limits on plastic production by Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the United States at the recent intergovernmental negotiating committee, will the Government, along with other high-ambition countries, consider moving from the current consensus decision-making process to one on a voting basis at the intergovernmental negotiating committee to accelerate progress? Finally, given that the UK itself has one of the highest plastic waste levels per person globally, including UK households throwing away 60 items per week, when will the Government bring forward their promised regulations to restrict the export of plastic waste from the UK?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
On the first part of the question, the INC has been adjourned; it will be resumed at a later date, at a time to be agreed. We remain steadfast in our commitment. We think that it is important to work with all countries if we are to make the kind of progress that we need in order to make a real difference. So, although no agreement was reached in Geneva, and neither of the two treaty texts put forward by the chair was accepted as a starting point, progress was made on other areas of the treaty. It is important to point out that this was not a complete waste of time. For example, the work the UK co-led with Chile and Panama to progress articles on product design and releases of plastic production in the environment resulted in a much better understanding of country positions and progress towards a landing zone. So we will keep all options under review, but we will continue to work towards a treaty that has broad support, because we want to have absolute maximum impact. Regarding the domestic policy that my noble friend mentioned, we are very keen to work and drive towards a more circular economy. We want to recycle more plastic waste, and we also need to ensure that it is recycled in the most effective and appropriate manner. So all these things are being considered under our circular economy policy.
State of Climate and Nature
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The question of China is important, because if we are to tackle climate change globally and meet net zero, we have to look at those countries that have high emissions. Until very recently, China was very dependent on fossil fuels, but we also know that it is making moves away from that. It has been investing a lot in nuclear, for example. It is important to get this into perspective, because a huge country cannot change overnight. However, this country can provide global leadership in working with other countries as they move to the change they need to move to. I welcome that China is looking to invest in non-fossil fuels and move forwards and that it has set targets. That is very important, because it was not the case a few years ago. We need to have it within the global bubble if we are to continue to make progress.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, the debate we have had on the Statement illustrates the value of maintaining the cross-party consensus that we have had on this subject to date. I was going to ask my noble friend the question that the Opposition have asked about maintaining public engagement in this debate, so I invite her to go one step further and ensure that, in that public engagement towards a just transition, we make clear what the science says about the implications and costs of us failing to act in the way that we have heard about from the Front Bench.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend makes an extremely good point. As I said earlier, if we are going to move forward in the most efficient and effective way, we will have to take the public with us, because they will have to make big changes and, in many circumstances, choose to make those changes—the more information people have, the more the Government can support the changes that need to be made, but it must be done in a way that demonstrates the real science behind it. Too much science around climate change is not proven, so it is really important that we have proper scientific evidence and advice when we are talking to people.