Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Earl of Effingham

Monday 10th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her positive introduction to this important SI. Plastic and microplastic pollution is a scourge of the modern age that did not exist when I was a child, and which must be tackled effectively if we are to save countless species. Unlike many previous SIs I have spoken on, this one has a thorough impact assessment. Although I cannot claim to have read all 55 pages in depth, it was clear enough to provide easily accessible information.

Wet wipes are responsible for a disproportionate number of blockages in our sewage system. They also litter the banks of our rivers and streams, and cause huge pollution on our seashores.

I am grateful to the Marine Conservation Society for its brief. Currently, 11 billion wet wipes are used every year in the UK. Some 54% of UK beach cleans found wet wipes, of which nearly two-thirds contained plastic. Despite wet wipes being marketed as flushable, many do not break down in water and, as we know, end up as sewage and other debris on our beaches and in the sea.

I am concerned that the enforcement and policing of this SI is again down to local authorities and trading standards officers, at a time when local authority budgets are under some of the most severe pressures they have ever faced. Can the Minister say whether local authorities will receive extra money for this increased responsibility?

I am sympathetic towards the Government’s intentions in this SI, but I feel that an opportunity is being lost and that more could be done at this time—something to which nearly every speaker has referred. A ban on plastic in wet wipes is welcome but, in terms of labelling, is it not time for all wet wipes to be classed as unflushable and for that to be said in large lettering on their packages? With childcare wet wipes being responsible for 18,477 million items in 2021, they are by far the largest consumer. It cannot be much more effort for a parent or carer to put a used wet wipe in a rubbish bin than it is to flush it down the toilet; I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, agrees with me on this.

Every baby and small child deserves the right to grow up in a society where plastic is not ruining the environment and overloading our inadequate sewage systems. Larger, adequate signing on the packaging would make a huge difference in ensuring that no wet wipes enter the sewage system. This would include those made from lyocell and viscose being treated the same as plastic, as these materials take a long time to decompose; the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to this.

The IA makes it clear that microplastics are damaging and disrupting our aquatic systems, resulting in the extinction of some marine organisms. Wet wipes are one of the chief culprits here. Although I support this SI, I ask the Minister: why have the Government not gone further and banned all wet wipes, even those with no plastic content, being flushed? This is a missed opportunity.

The table on page 12 of the IA shows that those using wet wipes for cosmetic purposes are getting the message. In 2018, 2,485 million wipes were used for cosmetic purposes; this had dropped to 1,205 million by 2021. Although that is still a huge amount, it shows that some consumers are reading the packaging and attempting to play their part.

Again, the IA informs us that humans consume 5 grams of plastic a week—the equivalent of a credit card—with microplastics. This is horrendous. As microplastics are also being found in human blood, surely it is time to take this issue more seriously. This ban is not being implemented for 18 months, which is too long; six months is plenty of time for such a ban to be introduced. Those currently using wet wipes will continue to do so regardless of whether they can flush them or bin them. The Environment Act calls loudly for the polluter to pay, and this instrument moves us some way towards that goal—though not quickly enough.

I welcome the Minister’s comments on the impending strategy on plastics, which I look forward to. I agree with all of the comments made by previous speakers, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on this vital issue.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are supportive of these regulations, which seek to ban wet wipes containing plastic. We commend the Government on pressing ahead with this important measure, which was first initiated by the previous Conservative Government in 2024. It is both a long-overdue and necessary step in tackling the scourge of plastic pollution, which finds its way into our rivers, on to our beaches and, ultimately, into our oceans.

These regulations are sensible, proportionate and practical. However, while this statutory instrument will eliminate one major source of plastic pollution, it will not solve the wider problem of what we are flushing down and into our sewer system. Wet wipes and other waste continue to create enormous fatbergs in our sewers. Oils, grease and wipes congeal into solid mounds that block the network, leading to flooding and enormous clean-up costs. Water UK tells us that 93% of sewage blockages are caused by wet wipes, costing around £100 million per year to clear. We have seen gruesome evidence of this: the 250-metre fatberg in Whitechapel in 2017, which weighed in at 130 tonnes, and, more recently, the so-called wet wipe island on the Thames near Hammersmith Bridge.

Even so-called plastic-free wipes are not a simple solution. Whether they are made from cotton, bamboo or viscose, they remain single-use products with significant environmental footprints and the liquids they contain often include palm oil or chemical preservatives that can damage our rivers. Nor does “biodegradable” mean what many people assume it does, as highlighted by the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Bennett. In laboratory tests, everything eventually breaks down, but our sewers are not—and should not be—laboratories. As the Rivers Trust has pointed out, these wipes are not designed to disintegrate quickly, so they continue to block pipes and form fatbergs. The only gain is that they no longer shed microplastics.

While His Majesty’s loyal Opposition fully support this ban, we must not imagine that it will end the fatberg menace. Plastic-free wipes, whether cleaning, make-up or baby wipes, behave nothing like toilet paper. They cling to grease, oils and other debris, creating the vast sewer monsters that cost millions to remove and drive up consumers’ water bills. Only last month, Thames Water cleared a 100-tonne fatberg from a sewer in Feltham in west London. Some 10 metres below ground, engineers had to blast, chisel and vacuum out 125 metres of congealed fat, oil and wet wipes—a blockage weighing as much as eight double-decker buses. The waste had to be craned out in skips and sent to landfill. Thames Water described the clearance as “hugely complex” and reminded us that, while some fatbergs weigh the same as 25 elephants, most blockages begin in small local pipes where sewage can back up into our streets, our rivers and people’s homes.

What can we do? Either we press manufacturers to create wipes that truly disintegrate or we accept that fatbergs, floods and higher water bills are here to stay. This statutory instrument is a necessary and welcome step and we commend the Government on carrying forward the initiative begun in 2024, but please let us not assume that our drains will run clear all of a sudden. Until both product design and public habits change, the fatbergs will keep on coming.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Enforcement Regulations 2024.

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Earl of Effingham

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. It is a pleasure to support this SI. Since the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, introduced this into the Chamber by way of a Private Member’s Bill, we have all been anticipating that it would be implemented as soon as possible. The instrument itself and the Explanatory Memorandum are clear as to what is to happen and who will perform the duties of enforcement. Much of it will fall on local authorities which, as we all know, are struggling to make their budgets balance. Can the Minister say whether local authorities will be recompensed for this additional work? The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, also raised this.

No one has any doubt that animals should not be transported live to Europe or other countries specifically for the purpose of slaughter. It is unnecessary to have transported animals suffering cramped conditions, often with no access to water and food, and for disproportionately long periods. Animals which are going to slaughter should be dispatched as near to their living quarters as possible. The distress that transportation causes should be kept to a minimum and access to abattoirs should be within close proximity. Other noble Lords have referred to this.

I have received a brief from the RSPCA, which has asked two questions. First, how does the instrument ensure that transporting live animals for slaughter or further fattening, including horses, is not authorised to Northern Ireland from England, if they would then be re-exported to the Republic of Ireland? The noble Lords, Lord Trees, Lord Elliott and Lord de Clifford, also referred to this matter. Secondly, the RSPCA asks: when will the Government come forward with proposals on improving the rules on the internal transportation of live animals in England, now that it is no longer limited by the transport times in Regulation 1/2005? I would be grateful if the Minister could provide answers to these two questions.

I also have a question of my own relating to the date of implementation for this SI. In the EM, at paragraph 5.2, we learn that Royal Assent was granted for the Act on 20 May of this year. Then in paragraph 5.3 we learn that the prohibition on transportation of live animals from and through the UK

“came into force on 22 July 2024”.

Again, that is this year. However, in the SI itself, Regulation 1(b) states—I am sorry that this is very nerdy —that the regulations

“come into force on 1st January 2025”.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the ban is already in place, as from 22 July, or whether animals will have to wait until 1 January 2025 to be totally protected. I realise that no animals have been exported for slaughter since 2020, but it is important that the dates on the legislation are accurate.

I look forward to the SI which will come forward to cover horses, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Apart from these queries, I totally support this vital SI and the sooner that it is enacted, the better.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Official Opposition welcome the Government’s Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Enforcement Regulations 2024. In government we took the issue of animal welfare very seriously, as evidenced by the passing of the Act to which this statutory instrument refers. The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024 prevented the exportation of livestock for the sole purpose of slaughter or preparation for slaughter and received cross-party support.

We are pleased that the current Government continue to focus on this area by implementing the practical steps to ensure that the correct people are held responsible. Increasing the necessary requirements of evidence submission will allow inspectors to examine more closely the intentions of a transporter and ensure that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that an animal is not being taken to slaughter.

I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument forward. We are satisfied that this is a sensible approach and have no issues to raise.

Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Earl of Effingham

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI. It is right that the common hippopotamus, the killer whale, the narwhal and the sperm whale are to be included in the category of protection for their ivory. I have to say that it has taken a long time to reach this point. In 2018, when we were discussing the Ivory Bill, the Minister’s predecessor on the Labour Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who I am delighted to see in her place, was tireless in trying to persuade the Government to include narwhals and other species in the categories to be classed as having ivory, but to no avail. The then Conservative Government were content to leave it at elephant ivory. The passage of the Bill was not easy, with the antique ivory lobby pressing hard for exclusions to the Bill. I began to wonder whether we would ever get the ban on elephant ivory through, but in the end we succeeded.

I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will not share my view. He referred to the destruction of items made of ivory that are of no antique value but are sent to landfill. He also referred to scrimshaw items made by sailors. I have some sympathy with his view on these items and I look forward to the Minister’s answer to his question about changing the policy on destroying ivory.

The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to historical antique ivory collections that may have been donated to museums and form part of history. This is a very valid argument. I note that a public consultation that took place between 17 July and 11 September 2021 overwhelmingly supported the measures we have before us.

Paragraph 7.1 of the EM states:

“Walrus ivory is not included in the extension of the Act under this instrument because it will remain prohibited subject to certain narrow exemptions under Council Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009”,


which relates to the Windsor Framework. The Minister referred to this exemption, but I am slightly confused by it and would be grateful if she could explain exactly what it means in terms of protection for the walrus species.

I am reassured that items containing ivory or made of ivory will be protected. I am also pleased that the burden of proof will lie with any accused to prove that the item is not ivory from an elephant or from the other four species covered in the SI. Scientific tests are to be used to determine the exact origin of the article and the age of the antique artefacts.

I welcome that this debate has covered both sides of the argument and we have heard opposing views. Nevertheless, I fully support this SI.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Official Opposition are in favour of any measures to preserve the rich tapestry of species on this planet, particularly those threatened with extinction. However, we have some concerns, not with the objective of this SI and the Ivory Act more broadly, but with some of the consequences of its drafting.

The SI extends the definition of ivory to include whale teeth and narwhal tusks. Although we agree with the banning of selling of modern items manufactured from these sources, there is no modern market for whale teeth or narwhal tusks. Old pieces of art, such as inscribed sailor’s knives or mounted narwhal tusks, will fall foul of these regulations and will have to be landfilled.

As we have heard already from my noble friends Lady Rawlings and Lord Carrington, there is virtually no import or export trade in whale teeth or narwhal tusks. In 2022, there were no commercial imports of sperm whale teeth, and just two teeth were exported. Narwhals are not on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s endangered list.

While it could be argued that this legislation is an important aspect of our soft power, it is debatable whether this soft power has worked. It has not had much influence on the EU, which bans the import and export of ivory but allows it to be traded within the EU. Will the Minister please clarify to the Committee what outcomes she foresees from this decision? Will she outline why these measures have been implemented and say whether she can see that they may have unforeseen and unintended consequences?