Global Plastic Pollution Treaty

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, given the collapse of the talks in August, does the Minister agree that a global agreement will not be reached if the petrochemical lobbyists continue to outnumber the independent scientists at the talks? What threshold of plastics needs to be found in human brains and reproductive systems for the oil-rich nations to treat this as an emergency and get everyone back to the table?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness’s last point was the main point—getting everybody back to the table. If we are to make a real difference globally, we need those countries with us to appreciate that the production method of plastic has to be part of where we move forward regarding plastic in the future. You cannot solve these issues on their own; it is a global issue. I know that it is incredibly frustrating that we feel that we have stalled. As I said, we have made some progress—we are getting to a better understanding of where other countries are coming from—and we will continue to try to make the further progress that we so badly need.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

It was reported last month that the sale of single-use plastic bags in this country jumped from 407 million items to 437 million in one year, a 7% increase. This was largely driven by online shopping, and particularly by the online supermarket Ocado, which accounts for about half of the single-use plastic bags sold. Although Ocado claims that most of its bags are recycled, we know that in the waste hierarchy, avoidance of use comes above recycling, and other supermarkets, such as Waitrose, provide online deliveries without plastic bags. Could the Government engage in conversations with our major supermarkets to encourage them not to use single-use plastic bags for food delivery?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a really important point. We have to continue to reduce our own plastic use in this country. Whereas recycling is important, if you do not have to use it in the first place, that is clearly an even better way to behave. We talk to supermarkets on all sorts of issues, and the noble Lord is absolutely right that this is something that we need to discuss and tackle with them. Consumers are expected to change their behaviour, but it is also important that retailers—and that includes online retailers—ensure that their behaviour is not adding to the plastic pollution problem.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, as so often, I agree entirely with the Minister on this matter—I know it is strange, but it is true. While we all deplore plastic waste—it is horrid, and I think that getting rid of plastic bags in general is fantastic—could she also reaffirm the enormous benefits that plastic brings in everything? We are carrying it now in our telephones and other things. It is really important that we do not throw plastics out with plastic waste.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The important thing is to make sure that we look at the pollution that plastic causes and the types of plastic that are most polluting. That is fundamentally what the debate is about.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Because of the importance of this subject, and notwithstanding the key blockers, is there a case for considering a mini-treaty of the coalition of the willing?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned, we are keeping all options on the table. Our priority at the moment is to try to move forward with all the countries, because that is what will make the biggest difference globally, but we will consider all options.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

First, let us put on the record that under the last Government and this one, the UK negotiating team was regarded as one of the best in the world on this subject. Do the Government agree that recycling alone will not solve the problem of the planned massive plastic production we will see over the next 30 years, and will the Government rule out unilateral UK action on production, which would damage our own industry? However, recognising that the oil-producing countries will never agree to a unanimous UN treaty, will the Government now take the lead with the 70 countries in the high-ambition coalition—a group that, as the Minister said, we founded—and the 130 countries which want to cut plastic usage, to agree a new treaty on reduction, use and the most dangerous chemicals used, and thus avoid the obstruction of the oil-producing countries? The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, stole my ending line: I was going to say, let us have a coalition of the willing, bypassing the cabal of the blockers.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we are looking at all options, but we want to have a treaty that is going to make the biggest difference. The noble Lord is absolutely right in saying that we have a fantastic negotiating team. We have made progress and we want to continue to make progress. It is very frustrating that production is becoming a blocker to agreeing a treaty, but if you take production out, you do not get the end result that is most beneficial. We want to continue working forward, but we will consider all options.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

In some ways we have let the horse out of the stable, in that we are flooded with microplastics ourselves. It is in breast milk, it is in placentas, and it is causing extraordinary newly discovered health problems—two of which, specifically, I would like to highlight. One is about crop production, in which people are reckoning that within the next decade, the yields from common crops will be up to 25% less because of the microplastics going through our water system. My question is: what are the Government doing on that? The other really big problem is that cheap school uniforms are made of polyester, which goes into kids’ bloodstreams. The European Union is moving forward very fast to try to ban that, at least in children’s uniforms. I ask those two questions of the Government about what they are doing about the problems we are already in and cannot immediately get out of because these are forever chemicals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right: microplastics and forever chemicals are of increasing concern. One thing we pushed for in the treaty was the inclusion of microplastics to reduce and prevent microplastic pollution from all different sources. One thing we did at INC-5.2, working with Chile, was to put forward a proposal on plastic product design. The criteria for that design were aimed at reducing microplastics that are generated through wear and tear. We know that that is one of the real issues. It is something that we are taking very seriously.