- [Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 8 July, on Preventing waste and enabling a circular economy, HC 929; Correspondence between the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on the Global Plastics Treaty, reported to the House on 15 July.]
- 2:21 pm
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 2:36 pm
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 2:40 pm
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- Does the hon. Member agree that the Government’s banning of disposable plastic vapes is another way we can help reduce this plastic waste?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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”.
- 2:50 pm
- 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.
- 2:55 pm