Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 10th June 2026
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text
Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines) Bill [HL]
Friday 11th September 2026
(6 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, aside from the commencement date and minor drafting changes, the Bill I am bringing forward to your Lordships’ House today is identical to the Bills of the same name introduced in the other place by my honourable friend Alberto Costa in previous Sessions—it just goes to show I do not really have an original thought in my head. I thought that the Bill was well worth presenting again, as previously I think it had been introduced under the 10-minute rule, which means that it did not have a Second Reading.
For many years, we have washed our clothes of man-made fibres happily, in blissful ignorance of what was released into our water and our environment. However, we now know that our clothes are made of millions of tiny fibres, the majority of which are plastic. These small plastic fragments, measuring 5 millimetres or smaller, are called microplastic fibres, and they are shed from synthetic clothes when produced, washed and worn. Globally, more than 840 million domestic washing machines are used; with every wash, these microfibres are shed and released into the water. They then make their way into the environment, with many ending up in the ocean and on our beaches. Research has estimated that between 700,000 and 7 million microfibres are released with every wash.
Due to their size, microplastic fibres are too small to be caught by standard washing machine filters and therefore end up in the sewerage system, where they are either removed during the sewage treatment process or, more worryingly, released into watercourses and, potentially, the sea. Researchers found that up to 650 million microplastic particles entered one wastewater treatment plant in Wales every day, with all of these ending up in sewage sludge. However, even the microplastics that are removed during the treatment process can still end up in the ocean. They are caught in the sewage sludge, which is usually used as a fertiliser on agricultural land, meaning the microplastics are released into the soil. Once in the terrestrial environment, they, too, can make their way into our seas.
Microplastics spread into the air, soil, ice and water and have been found in a range of ecosystems, from the deep sea to the summit of Mount Everest. Plants and animals may absorb, inhale or ingest microplastics, which can then be transferred through the food chain. Microplastics can cause chemical harms to living things, such as through the leaching of toxic additives, and physical harms, such as causing internal blockages and abrasions. Emerging evidence suggests that microplastics may be associated with broader ecological impacts and, indeed, human health issues, such as respiratory disorders, neurological symptoms and gastrointestinal issues.
The advent of technological solutions, in particular the fitting of filters within washing machines, can stop microfibres entering our wastewater and, ultimately, the ocean. Of the estimated 12.2 million tonnes of plastic entering the ocean globally every year, just under 1 million tonnes are primarily microplastics. The Bill in front of the House today would go some way to rectify the situation. I acknowledge that it is far from being a silver bullet, but does that mean that we should not take measures to do what we can to radically reduce the number of these microplastics entering our environment?
Clause 1 of the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to introduce regulations that would require manufacturers to fit microplastic filters to all new domestic and commercial washing machines in England. These regulations could also create associated offences punishable by fines. This would be done with statutory instruments made under the affirmative procedure, meaning that both Houses of Parliament would have to approve them before they became law. Requirements on manufacturers would need to be in place by 1 January 2030, and filters would be required to catch typically at least 90% of the microplastics measured by mass.
Clause 2 would confer a duty upon the Secretary of State to promote the benefits of microplastic filters and raise awareness of the consequences of microfibres shed from clothing. This duty would extend to schools and other educational settings, and the Bill would also allow the Secretary of State to publish guidance to public bodies related to these duties.
Clause 3 would provide that the Bill would come into force on the day it was passed and extend to England and Wales, though the Bill would apply only in England.
I can well imagine some of the objections to the Bill, which I may be hearing a little bit later. Some will say that the cost of fitting such filters would naturally increase the price of a washing machine, and I am sure it would—but I would argue that the price of filters would come down with increased production, and this is literally a small price to pay for the end result. Improvements in textile manufacture will also be very important in resolving this issue.
Others may argue that this is a burden on business— I would say, with some experience over the years, that this always a good excuse for doing nothing. I am very pleased that this Bill and its precursors have had the strong support of the Women’s Institute and charities such as the Marine Conservation Society; I have been a member of the latter for many years. I also declare my interest as a member of the advisory board of River Action. I have not yet applied to be a member of the Women’s Institute, but it is an admirable body, and I thoroughly support what it is doing. I thank the House of Lords Library for producing an excellent brief on the Bill.
As befits a Private Member’s Bill, it is a simple measure that would have a major benefit. I know that Governments are reticent to act on such things—I am not completely naive—but I urge the Government to give careful thought to this and not reject it out of hand or put it into the “too difficult” category. If this Bill is not successful, there is ample opportunity in the forthcoming and much-anticipated water Bill for this or something similar to be included. I do not think this issue will be going away. This is not the end of the cycle. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and I commend him on bringing forward the Bill and introducing it so powerfully. I join him in commending the Women’s Institute, which has been campaigning on this issue since 2017. Indeed, the title of its campaign, “End Plastic Soup”, gave me a phrase that I use very often. I have spoken to many grass-roots members of the Women’s Institute, who I know are very passionate about the issue, as well as those who are actually leading the campaign.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, said—this is worth stressing—that about 60% or more of the fabrics produced in the world today are synthetic; they are plastic. It tends to be, broadly, the cheaper clothing that is made from these synthetic fibres, so we are also addressing an equality issue here, because we are going to see more synthetic fibres in poorer areas worn by poorer people, which is something that I will come back to. Some 9.4 trillion microplastic fibres are released from clothing per week in the UK. That is one of those numbers that is so large as to be almost unimaginable, but it stresses that the term “plastic soup”, as used by the Women’s Institute, is exactly the right terminology.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, addressed some of the arguments we are inevitably going to hear against this. I think we will also hear about what we have seen happening internationally: the French Parliament legislated to have microfibre filters by 2025 but has failed to implement it, and the California State Assembly passed a similar Bill in 2023 but has seen resistance. We have seen claims that we are not really sure how much it is going to filter out and what consumers are going to do with what is filtered out—all of these issues. But I think the argument is that this is a major issue, on which you could have an iterative process of development with the manufacturers to make sure we bring in the law and we work out the details of exactly how it is structured—something that would appropriately happen in a statutory instrument. The Government could, as the noble Lord said, take this forward in the forthcoming water Bill.
Every time I speak about plastic pollution, I report a far-from-comprehensive list of the new reasons for concern about the wider, interrelated human, animal and environmental health impacts, particularly of microplastics and nanoplastics. I have talked before about how the placentas of babies born prematurely have higher plastic concentrations than the placentas from full-term births. I could add a further list about the 16,000 chemicals present in plastic, the impact of many of which we have no idea about, but I have a time limit. Let us see what we have learned recently about microplastic and nanoplastic pollution.
Patients with lung cancer in Greece, according to a report published just this week, had 20% more microplastics in their lung fluid samples. That is from a study from the European Respiratory Society. In Lake Geneva, Switzerland, which has probably some of the world’s best water treatment facilities—absolutely world-leading—they have found that the concentration of microplastics in the lake measuring between one and 100 micrometres may have been underestimated by more than 650-fold.
The New York Times picked up on a report from Cornell University in 2024 that found that, on average, people in Indonesia are consuming 15 grams of plastic particles every month, the weight of three credit cards. The New York Times is looking into the detail of this—and, if noble Lords have not seen it, it is well worth looking at. A large amount of that is waste from the global North that is shipped to Indonesia and dealt with inappropriately.
I declare my position as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Microplastics and note that that group has a report just out reflecting on the potential impacts on food security in the UK from the microplastics in the soil. It is not hard to see how you go from the washing machine to the river to the soil. This is a critical issue: the planetary boundary for novel entities has been far exceeded. We need to do everything we can.
This Bill is a modest step but an important one to take. I particularly stress the importance of Clause 2(1)(b), about raising awareness of the consequences of microplastics in closing through the laundry cycle—although, if I was to put down a friendly amendment, it would suggest that we should expect the Government to educate the public generally about microplastics and the potential damage. I ask the Minister if the Government have any plans for this. I refer back to the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act and our attempts to think about what is in our school uniforms and the plastics that they are filled with. Will the Government do something to educate the public about microplastics generally?
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge for bringing the Bill before your Lordships’ House and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her valuable contribution to the debate.
The Bill raises the issue of microplastic pollution, over which there is increasing concern. An evidence base is emerging that microplastics can cause harm both ecologically and to human health. The World Health Organization has highlighted the need for further research into its impacts but, as a precaution, we should continue to reduce plastic pollution. Indeed, consumers and producers are increasingly aware of their environmental responsibilities, and many go beyond what the Government already require.
On domestic washing machines specifically, the House of Lords Library in its recent research note on the Bill estimated that they discharge anything between 6,490 and 87,165 tonnes of microfibres in the UK each year. That is quite a large margin, and it evidences the need for further research. The health and environmental risks present reasons why households may want to apply microfibre filters, which can then be disposed of as solid waste. Indeed, these can be retrofitted on to existing machines. However, the cost of these filters can vary significantly, as does their effectiveness. The Bill would mandate that such filters must catch at least 90% of microplastics, when measured by mass. However, as was stated by the previous Conservative Government in April 2023, the effectiveness is also dependent on user behaviour. Furthermore, we need to have a clearer understanding of what costs this would impose on households as well as industry before pressing ahead with such regulations.
Our position as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition has not changed. We expect the industry to continue innovating and developing microfibre filters, and we of course support efforts to research the issues more thoroughly. As a result, we do not yet believe this issue warrants primary legislation. That is not to say that we are not serious about curbing plastic pollution; on the contrary, the Bill would not tackle the sources of plastic pollution upstream. Therefore, I am pleased that this debate has allowed us to raise awareness of the issue and discuss how best we can tackle plastic pollution. It is in that spirit that I thank my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge for his hard work. I look forward to hearing the insights of other noble Lords and the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. There is clearly strength of feeling in the concerns around microplastics and the increasing problems that we are starting to see that they are causing. These are important perspectives and the Government absolutely recognise the legitimacy of the concerns that underpin them, so I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for bringing forward this Bill and for clearly laying out the concerns about microfibres, particularly in clothing and textiles.
The Government recognise the benefits of minimising pollutants at source. To tackle the issue of microplastic pollution in our waterways, we have already taken some action. We have banned wet wipes containing plastic, and that was built on a previous ban on microbeads in products. Those actions have marked a major step forward.
Particular issues around wastewater were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, talked about microplastics entering the sewerage system. We as a Government are committed to taking a systematic approach to tackling issues with drainage and wastewater, and that includes a real focus on tackling the root causes of sewage pollution. In England, wastewater treatment works remove up to 99% of microplastics, but we want to ensure that legislation, regulatory mechanisms and funding streams support the delivery of solutions.
The Government also recognise the importance of building a strong evidence base to understand pollutant sources, impacts and of course the most effective interventions to protect human health and the environment. In 2025, Defra finalised a research project on microplastics. The project assessed the impacts of intentionally added microplastics on the environment and human health. Defra is currently considering the results of this important analysis in order to inform our next steps. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade leads on requirements relating to washing machine product standards, so we work closely together across the departments to understand the cost impacts of applying these filters. That needs to be balanced against the environmental harm that is caused.
Evidence that was presented to Defra in 2020 indicated variable performances of filters in trapping microplastics, as well as a range of costs associated with installing them in or outside new machines. However, I would very much welcome new evidence to assess the current state of filter technology. Recommendations have been made to industry to conduct a public willingness to pay survey, considering the cost of living challenges that we are currently undergoing, and to investigate and assess the suitability, feasibility, management, disposal and costs of recycling washing machine filters and the microplastics that are captured by those filters.
Before introducing any new legislation, we need to ensure that the evidence is robust and fully reviewed. For example, it must be clear that the product has a significant environmental impact and that any new requirements would not entail excessive costs or impact on product functionality. Filters may well form part of the solution, but there are uncertainties around performance, as well as cost, maintenance and disposal of captured fibres. We will consider product design, producer responsibility and end-of-pipe controls together, rather than imposing added costs on consumers before effectiveness has been established. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, referenced the need for further understanding and evidence.
Having said that, we welcome the APPG’s second report and thank Alberto Costa, the Women’s Institute and the Global Plastics Policy Centre for their work. The report provides a helpful contribution to the evidence and policy debate and reflects the increasing public concern about the presence of microplastics in water, soil, air and the wider environment, which was clearly laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
We would like to acknowledge that we recognise the report’s five priority areas: a co-ordinated policy framework; action on major sources; stronger producer responsibility; improved protections for wastewater, sewage sludge and soils; and better monitoring and evidence. Of course, the recommendations cut across different policy areas and departments, so we will ensure that we come together where needed to properly consider them. Engagement with parliamentarians, industry, academia and civil society is invaluable in informing this work, and I very much welcome the continued dialogue on this important issue.
None of this, of course, diminishes the urgency of the challenge, as we have heard very clearly this afternoon. The Government are clear-eyed about the growing concern on the issue of microplastics, and we are acting through engagement with stakeholders and supporting research, including on the potential role of technologies such as microfibre filters, as we have discussed today. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also made some important points regarding the education of the public in this matter. Again, we need to have as much information as we can, so we very much welcome a commitment from industry to develop and implement standardised tests to provide unequivocal performance data on washing machine filters.
In closing, I once again thank the noble Lord for bringing the Bill forward and for stimulating an important and thoughtful, although short, debate. While I share the ambition that motivates the Bill, for the reasons stated, the Government cannot support it. But I want to assure the noble Lord that government will continue to focus on exploring opportunities to improve our understanding of the sources of microplastics and the risks they pose and ensuring that the most effective interventions are in place to protect human health and the environment. I commend the House for the quality of today’s debate.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lord, I cannot say I am completely surprised by the reaction of both Front Benches, and I thank them for their contributions. I detected, just slightly, a slight movement—at the pace of a sloth going on a go-slow—by the Minister towards this. I am afraid my experience of government and being a government special adviser on this is that it takes a lot to move positions, but I remain ever hopeful, and I know we will have other occasions.
I would like to thank sincerely the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I was delighted to see her on the on the speakers’ list, because she has the analytical skills and the scientific knowledge to fill in the gaps, whereas I try to do it with just a passion for something that, genuinely, I think lots of people share, particularly about the health risks to human health. That said, I am not going to sob myself to sleep tonight, but I am going to think of more cunning and devious ways to get this message across. In the meantime, I beg to move.