Global Plastics Treaty

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

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.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

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.

[Mr Carmichael]

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.

We also understand that one of the biggest barriers in Geneva is going to be the role of the plastics industry itself. It is exceptionally well resourced, and it is rooted downstream of the oil and gas industry. Personally, I am pragmatic about the use of oil and gas. Until we have other technologies that can take its place, it is foolish to push our oil and gas industry off the shelf, but I am afraid I see little to commend in its behaviour. Had the industry’s representatives all come as one delegation to the last round of talks in Korea, it would have been the largest delegation at the talks. I am pleased to say that the UK delegation is the gold standard in this space. It is well resourced, and is well informed by scientific advisers, but that is not a cause for complacency or smugness. We have to see that it gives us an opportunity to help and support others.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which I chair, took evidence on the global plastics treaty just last week, on 8 July, and some of what I heard was genuinely shocking. Professor Richard Thompson OBE, who is a fellow of the Royal Society and a professor of marine biology at the University of Plymouth, said:

“Moreover, scientists I work with have been threatened on UN premises as part of these negotiations. Almost what I would consider a fundamental right to science and to access science is being denied. It particularly falls on some of the smaller nations. DEFRA is very well blessed in that it can afford to send a big delegation of highly trained scientists, which is fantastic, but they stand alongside small island developing nations, which perhaps only have one individual there. The need for a science mechanism is actually mandated in UNEA 5/14, and we need it really urgently to address this issue.”

It was one of those moments when I had to stop and say, “Just a second, did you say what I thought you said there?” Even after we had explained to him his position as an eminent scientist giving evidence to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, with all the protection of privilege, he was not comfortable calling out in detail what is happening.

The fact of the matter is that we know that it is happening. If we are to get this treaty across the line, UK needs to be robust not just in presenting our own case, but in supporting and protecting those who are less fortunate than we are: the small island nations, the campaigners and the scientists who are there on their own finance. My final ask is that there should be a ministerial presence at the negotiations in Geneva, which would be a really important signal that the Government could send about the seriousness of their intent.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you said I would speak for 15 minutes and I think I have had 14, so I will return to the email that I got from Jim Chalmers. He went on to say:

“I’m sure I have a reputation as that weird guy that carries a bag with him when he’s out with the dog, picking up litter (I call it recyclates). However, I know fine I’m urinating into the wind”

—he did not actually say “urinating”—

“as I have no control whatsoever over the source of the stuff and the forces that encourage and permit its growing release. I appreciate that the 17th of this month is not a good time for you to be away from Orkney”

—there is never a good time to be away from Orkney—

“but if you can somehow bring any influence to bear, I would feel my efforts aren’t totally in vain.”

It is for people like my constituent Mr Chalmers and his likes right across this country that we are here today. We pin our hopes and their hopes on the efforts of the Government and like-minded countries to get the treaty that we know we need and that our planet deserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord]

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.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Does the hon. Member agree that the Government’s banning of disposable plastic vapes is another way we can help reduce this plastic waste?

[Richard Foord]

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.

As we know, the US President has never been a great advocate for tackling climate change or reducing plastic waste. He made that abundantly clear in his attention-seeking stunt in February, when he proudly brought back plastic straws. At the heads of delegation meeting earlier this month, the US backtracked on its previous position. It walked away from earlier commitments on control measures and financing, and came out firmly against plastic production caps. The Prime Minister has explicitly cited family values as a foundation of his strong relationship with the US President. Could the Minister urge the Prime Minister to leverage that personal connection, and ask the President to consider not just global leadership, but the world that his own family will inherit? We have to consider young people in this picture, and for that we will need serious and concrete commitments at the global plastics treaty negotiations.

Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend also accept that because glass is heavier than other products, it costs more to recycle and transport? It may break during transport, so it is not the case that it is a more sustainable product.

[Sarah Champion]

I have not heard that or seen any evidence of that. All I can say is that in Wales, 95% of the glass is kerbside-collected and recycled. I do not know where my hon. Friend’s stats come from. If she would like to share them with me and the industry, I would like to have a look.

Glass produced in Turkey is not currently covered by emissions trading, so the CO₂ emitted is not captured by matching penalties. In addition, Turkish glass manufacturers have built factories in organised industrial zones and benefit from Government support in the form of lower water, natural gas or telecommunications costs, as well as a lower taxation scheme.

The lower cost base, supported by the Turkish Government in the form of state aid, is assisting Turkey in targeting export prices at rates that are lower than UK factory costs. However, it is the baseline fees set for glass under the extended producer responsibility that are set to be the hammer-blow. And the hammer administering that blow is being wielded by a Labour Government, which I find hugely disappointing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sarah Champion]

Not at the moment.

In the meantime, our Government are driving packaging customers decisively and permanently away from glass. If, for example, a brand sells 1 million half-litre bottles, the EPR fees for glass would be £72,000. If, on the other hand, the brand decides to put its product into plastic or aluminium, it will pay no EPR fees whatsoever. Officials and Ministers have argued that materials that are part of a deposit return scheme will be subject to set-up costs, and it is on those grounds that they are granted exemption from EPR fees for close to two and a half years. Yet those set-up costs are still unknown publicly and therefore cannot be, and have not been, considered by brands and retailers when making their packaging choices. The truth is that brands and retailers can avoid the imminent threat of additional costs from EPR by switching away from glass packaging to not pay EPR fees on their beverage products. Once those producers have decided to switch packaging materials, they must invest in new filling technology, and that makes it highly unlikely that they will ever switch back to glass.

This is not a hypothetical problem. The glass industry is already seeing evidence of material-switching to less recyclable packaging. I know that DEFRA has been sent a great deal of evidence of material-switching but, let us be honest, this policy choice does not seem based on evidence but on some unfathomable ideology.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Sarah Champion]

I am sorry, no.

In public, and in response to correspondence, DEFRA stated that there is no, or not enough, evidence of material-switching. That is simply not true. The industry, our businesses, and the sectors affected have supplied that evidence. It makes me wonder whether there is any threshold of evidence that would result in a rethink of the scheme.

DEFRA has highlighted the modulation of future EPR fees to address those expansive concerns, but let us be honest, even at the earliest point that such modulation would be introduced, huge and likely terminal damage will already have been done to glass manufacturers. It is not clear under the current guidelines whether glass will receive a reduction in fees, and it could even receive a fee increase in the future. Fees are currently charged retrospectively so, given the lack of confirmed information on the level of fees that glass will face, the costs are essentially unrecoverable. How can businesses be expected to operate under this profound uncertainty about their current and future costs?

For DEFRA, “reuse” often represents a magic bullet that will address all concerns, if only the industry would get onboard. The glass sector is keen to be part of the development of reuse and glass is the perfect material for it, but we must accept that large-scale national reuse systems are at least a decade away because there is currently no reuse infrastructure. Furthermore, not all products are suitable for reuse. Glass manufacturers can already supply reusable bottles, but a reuse scheme is much more than that. It would require significant buy-in across the whole supply chain.

The Minister also needs to recognise that not all glass bottles are for drinks. Beatson Clark, in my constituency, manufactures medicine bottles. Reuse is a laudable goal and one that the glass industry is keen to collaborate with the Government to achieve, but it is being repeatedly deployed as grounds to ignore the industry’s concerns about EPR. Reuse and EPR are two separate issues, and the conflation seems a deliberate muddying of the debate. The short-term impact of EPR could destroy the UK glass industry long before plans for reuse are even on the drawing board.

DEFRA has stated that the recycling reforms will add at least 21,000 new jobs and £10 billion to the UK economy, and stimulate the growth on which the Government are rightly focused. Yet it is unclear how those new jobs will be created. They are unlikely to be the kind of wealth-generating jobs that we currently have in the glass sector—jobs that are based in our manufacturing heartland, which really needs that work. Even if the Minister’s prediction were true, why risk existing jobs? Why not take the time to get EPR right and have both?

This is not scaremongering. The glass packaging industry is being driven into a crisis directly of the Government’s own making. UK glass manufacturers are already reporting that demand is down by 20%—although the EPR policy has been in place for only a month—and that low-cost imports have increased to help to absorb EPR costs.

On paper, I get that the Government are ostensibly seeking to encourage recycling, while recovering the cost to the public purse of its delivery. That is the right objective, but their approach will achieve the exact opposite. It will encourage switching to less recyclable materials; add costs to businesses such as pubs and breweries already struggling under inflationary and other cost pressures; and increase prices for consumers. If the concerns of industry are not addressed today, the Government also risk destroying our domestic capacity, leaving us reliant on highly polluting foreign imports.

I have raised these issues with the Minister time and again, as have other hon. Members, British Glass and individual businesses. I cannot therefore understand the reticence to engage with these very real problems. The origins of EPR lie with the previous Administration, but by continuing this flawed and ultimately self-defeating approach, a Labour Government risk destroying a great British industry. Does the Minister really want to be responsible for killing off our most recyclable packaging producer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate.

In the 10 months since I was elected MP for Ealing Southall, one issue has been raised with me more than any other: litter and fly-tipping. That is why I have made it my business as an MP to campaign on the issue, and that is why I welcome the extended producer responsibility regulations. They sound complicated, but they mean that the businesses that make the packaging that ends up on our streets and in our parks need to pay for that packaging to be recycled or disposed of. It is the polluter pays principle, and it makes complete sense to my constituents in Ealing Southall.

Up to now, local councils have had to pay the full cost of getting rid of that rubbish, and that means it is actually local council tax payers who foot the bill. That is not fair, and I know that my constituents will welcome the businesses that produce the packaging finally being forced to pay for it. When they buy a SIM card on the internet, they wonder why it comes with so much plastic and paper packaging. The new system means that businesses will face extra costs for that, which will give them a reason to reduce packaging, taking rubbish out of the system in the first place. For my constituents, that will mean less cardboard and plastic strewn on our streets.

The new system will also mean that Ealing council will now get an extra £4.7 million this year from the levy. It sounds like a lot of money, but in fact it costs £30 million every year to collect and get rid of all our rubbish. It is only right that the people who produce the rubbish should have to pay at least some of that massive cost.

[Sarah Champion]

Will my hon. Friend please assure her constituents that the whole sector supports EPR, but that, because of the two-year lag, there will be more plastic on her streets, not less?

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am afraid that the glass industry is perpetuating some of these untruths, and it just needs to get on board with the policy—it constantly wants to delay, but we need to make EPR happen now.

The glass industry says that it does not support the policy and that glass is more recyclable than other products. Let it tell that to my constituents, who see glass bottles in black sack fly-tips in parks, or dropped in little piles on streets where people have been street drinking, every day. In fact, just 43% of glass is recycled back into bottles. The glass industry also says that glass is being treated unfairly compared with plastic and cans, but plastic and cans will be included in the deposit return scheme, as we have already heard. Glass had the opportunity to be part of the scheme and the industry lobbied hard not be included. I congratulate it—it did a good job—but it cannot get off scot-free. It is either part of the reverse vending machine plan or part of the “polluter pays” system that we are talking about today. It has to be in one or the other—it creates litter and it must pay for the cost of clearing it up. Council tax payers cannot be left to continue picking up the tab.

The glass industry also says that it is being charged more than it should be, because the fees are based on weight. As I have said, weight is important: the heavier a product is, the more it costs to transport for recycling. It is also breakable, which increases the cost further, and glass costs a lot more to recycle, both in money and in carbon, as the heat has to be so high. Recycled glass bottles use 75% of the energy needed to make new bottles, compared with just 15% for reuse. The charges in the plan are based on the estimated costs to councils of recycling glass, and the industry needs to understand that. Glass really does need to come up with a sustainable plan for reuse, rather than arguing against the tide of the “polluter pays” principle.

I know the published fees are still in draft so that the Minister and her Department can ensure they are fair and based on actual costs. I have a lot of sympathy for the pub and restaurant businesses that might be affected, but the Department is looking in detail at some of the points raised, so I am sure a sensible solution will be found. It is important to emphasise that clean streets are vital for pubs and restaurants—they will not make money if no one wants to go to their mucky town centre.

The final argument from the industry is that it does not think the fees it pays will be spent on waste and recycling. I have heard that a lot, but already my local council in Ealing is making plans to spend some of the money on cracking down on fly-tipping. It will use CCTV by Southall common and treat fly-tipping as an environmental crime with police tape and a cordon, based on work by Keep Britain Tidy. Ealing council also has plans to open a new reuse centre in Acton.

There are calls from the glass industry, as we have heard, to delay the “polluter pays” levy, but I strongly urge the Minister to resist those calls. The previous Government delayed taking action, which led to rubbish on our streets increasing by more than one third on their watch. People in Ealing Southall want cleaner streets. They are sick to death of bottles, cans, cardboard, mattresses, sofas and all the rest of it blighting their community. The Government have already shown they are deadly serious about making local areas feel loved again. Let us get on with sorting out the mess and bring in the new law to clean up our streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this debate, although I fear she is not going to agree with what I am about to say.

Glass is one of the most used materials in the world—we have used it for thousands of years. In ancient times, glassmaking was viewed as mysterious and magical. It is a really special product and we use a lot of it in this country. I think that the extended producer responsibility is the right way to go. We are talking about recycling, reusing and reducing. There is a business in my constituency called ecoSIP, run by a man called Alex Taylor. He is a supporter of the EPR scheme; I suspect that the Minister will be pleased that there is a business that does support it. He wrote to me and said:

“We are supporters of the EPR scheme. We believe it forces companies to take responsibility for the emissions and waste that they create, and provides incentives to decarbonise.”

He is part of a UK-led green packaging revolution. It is happening in Leighton Buzzard, but also across the east of England—in Ipswich, for example—and right across our country. EcoSIP is on a mission to decarbonise the drinks industry with lightweight, low-carbon packaging. I have been to visit and I have seen the little packages used for its wine. Each pouch uses just 2.5 grams of material. Its packaging uses 90% less CO₂ than glass, yet the wine inside tastes just as good. We need to take that on board, not least because we are in the midst of a climate emergency.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Is my hon. Friend aware of Frugalpac, which produces wine containers in Ipswich, and is similarly trying to wean us off our reliance on glass and other unsustainable packaging and to offer green jobs in this country?

[Alex Mayer]

I am absolutely aware of Frugalpac in Ipswich. The east of England, where I am from, is leading the charge.

These modern green manufacturing organisations face certain issues. I urge the Minister to talk to other Departments as well, not least about the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988, which I am told makes it illegal to sell 125 ml portions, which is what an average person would normally order as a glass of wine, in this modern packaging. There is stuff to be done, but luckily that is not a DEFRA thing.

There will always be a role for glass. It looks pretty—there is a bottle of it here. I love my Bonne Maman jars. We are never going to be able to turn an ecoSIP container into a candlestick holder. But we have to crack down on waste and boost recycling. The extended producer responsibility is an important first step, not least because it will also create 21,000 jobs and put a £10 billion investment into recycling, which is really welcome. In conclusion, I urge the Minister not to bottle it and to make sure that she goes full steam ahead.

Fly-tipping: West Midlands

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton]

There we go. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has joined the debate, because there is a large number of Labour MPs in Birmingham city.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing the debate. A deposit return scheme under which people take plastic bottles and cans back to the shop to get their money back, using a reverse vending machine, has reduced black-sack litter in many countries across Europe and the world. Will the right hon. Lady explain why her party voted against a deposit return scheme in Parliament on 21 January this year, despite having previously backed one as part of the solution to fly-tipping?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I absolutely support recycling schemes, as do Conservatives more broadly. That specific vote, which I believe was before the hon. Lady came into the House, was not UK-wide, and I think that was the issue. We need to work cross-party to find the best way forward on recycling and bottle deposit and return schemes. Any scheme has to work with individuals, communities and producers.

The ongoing bin strike in Labour-run Birmingham is now having a detrimental effect on every one of us who shares a border with Birmingham. For example, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), who cannot be with us today, abuts Hall Green in Birmingham. On one side, the bins are piling up, whereas over the border on the other side, in Conservative-run Solihull, the streets are clean. In the past few weeks my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) has highlighted the similar situation on the border of his constituency.

Environmental Protection

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

As chair of the Tidy Britain all-party parliamentary group, I want to thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. The APPG and Keep Britain Tidy have worked on this issue for years, including under the chairship of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). It is exciting to finally see change being delivered in today’s regulations, and I congratulate the Minister on her speedy and no-nonsense approach to making this happen.

I frequently visit local schools and when I ask the children what they would like to see changed in Ealing Southall, they always say they want less litter on the streets. Adults complain about litter all the time, of course, but I had not realised how much children were disturbed by it. Litter makes places feel unloved and it makes the people who live in those places feel unloved too. It makes it embarrassing to ask friends around to your house, and it is a daily reminder that your street and your family just do not matter.

Over the last 14 years, the amount of litter on our streets has gone up by a third: a tsunami of litter created by the previous Conservative Government, who slashed the funding for local councils to the bone. Councils such as my own in Ealing were left having to spend about two thirds of their budget on adult and children’s social care, with very little left for anything else. They had to make impossible decisions: spend money on potholes or libraries; on playgrounds or parking; on street sweepers or youth workers. They were left to rely on local volunteer litter pickers such as LAGER Can in Ealing, who do an amazing job, but they cannot do it alone.

It is great that this new Labour Government have increased funding for local councils, and I am confident that the Chancellor’s spending review in the spring will allow councils to plan services better, but let us be honest that picking up litter after people is a total waste of money. That money could be much better spent on more playgrounds or youth clubs. The real solution is to stop the litter in the first place.

What if people were rewarded for recycling their litter instead of dropping it on the street? What if they got money back? That is exactly what this Labour Government are doing today. We are making recycling pay. These new rules mean that shops across the country will be fitted out with reverse vending machines that give people money back for their used plastic bottles and cans. I have tried out the machine in the shop beside my mum’s house in Ireland, and it is simple and easy to use. People feed in their empties, and they get a voucher for their money back.

Since being introduced in Ireland in February last year, reverse vending machines have already increased recycling and reduced litter on the streets. Right now, bins in streets, parks and beaches across the UK are chock-full of empty plastic bottles and cans. Think what a difference it would make if all those bottles and cans went back to the shop instead. We would end the problem of overflowing bins on the high street forever.

In Ealing, a massive 41% of all reported fly-tips are black sack fly-tips containing household waste such as empty plastic bottles and cans, so making recycling pay would also reduce fly-tipping.

The previous Government knew that this made sense as long ago as 2017, but they dithered, delayed and fought among themselves. Today, we have seen a total U-turn, with Conservative Members fighting against their own policy. Again, they prove that they are on the side of the vested interests, the polluters and the litter bugs.

Two schools in my constituency came to see me this week, and they said that this makes sense and will reduce litter on the streets. Even the children know that this is the right thing to do.

Today we are ending the Conservative record of dither and delay, and their deplorable refusal to do anything about so many communities that feel neglected and uncared for. The only way to get rid of litter on our streets is to stop people dropping it in the first place. This new plan to make recycling pay will help clean up our streets and parks, our rivers and beaches, and put money back in people’s pockets.

Fly-tipping

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Tristan Osborne]

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a postcode lottery across the country on how councils are managing this issue. I want to celebrate the example of Medway council, my local authority, which has done outstanding work. We have introduced free bulky waste collection for residential waste, working with our contractor, to reduce the quantity of mattresses and other residential waste left on streets across the town. The Love Medway Hate Litter scheme, which followed the Love Essex programme, has raised awareness among the public. We have increased fines to the top level, and it is important that councils send a message by using Government powers to increase fines. It is right that he challenges his council leader on this matter.

We also work across boroughs. Local authorities are not islands unto themselves, so it is important that Medway works with Gravesham, Swale and other local councils on cross-boundary issues. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) is sitting behind me.

We also have a wall of shame in Medway, to publicise people who are conducting this environmental crime by naming and shaming those who are caught and fined. We work very closely with our probation and community payback service to ensure that those who commit the crime clear up their mess. We have increasingly used CCTV technologies in hotspot locations to catch perpetrators. Those schemes in Medway have resulted in successes in challenging fly-tipping but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) said, that is not the same across all Kent areas.

I have a series of questions for the Minister. The new respect orders that the Government are introducing are extremely welcome. I entirely endorse the approach undertaken by the Home Office and others to curb antisocial behaviour, including nuisance biking and other persistent behaviours. Will the respect orders include those who engage in persistent environmental crimes, or will the Minister look at other enforcement approaches?

Courts can give different fines for fly-tipping, depending on the size, but many councils have a standard fine approach. Will that be reviewed to take into account the size and nature of the fly-tip to dissuade people from commercial fly-tipping? Will the Government monitor the number of fixed penalty notices and court enforcements occurring in each council area, because there is a postcode lottery in this country?

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I very much appreciate the opportunity to have this debate. I completely agree with my hon. Friend about raising fines and reviewing magistrates court decisions in this matter, but does he agree with me that the simplest, easiest and cheapest way to deal with fly-tipping is to take the waste out of the system in the first place, and therefore looking at mandatory take-back schemes, whereby people bring back their goods when they are finished with them and get money back, and at genuinely recyclable products, is the way forward? Therefore, does he welcome the Government’s steps to bring forward the “polluter pays” principle in the extended producer responsibility regulations that are currently being laid, and also the deposit return scheme for glass and plastic bottles, which will help to reduce fly-tips that are in black sacks?

[Tristan Osborne]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the principle of the circular economy, which I entirely endorse. The linear economy that we have, which relies on waste disposal, should be challenged. I am very encouraged that, finally, the EPR guidelines that the Government are pursuing are being enacted. We should be encouraging councils to recycle, and that needs to be looked at in relation to the variations of postcode lotteries that we get. In one of the two local authorities in my area, recycling is done on a two-weekly basis, and in the other it is done weekly. Education is also needed on what can be placed in the bins as well. The producers need to be responsible for their packaging and making it recyclable, so I agree that there needs to be some work in relation to corporate interests on that.

Fly-tipping

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of fly-tipping.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford, in the first Westminster Hall debate that I have secured since being elected the MP for Ealing Southall. I have chosen the very important issue of fly-tipping for this first debate.

After 14 years of chaos from the previous Conservative Governments, we have an NHS in crisis, an economy that came close to collapse, communities living in fear of crime and a failure to act on the threat of environmental breakdown. My constituents in Ealing Southall recognise that fixing the NHS, putting police back on our streets, tackling the climate crisis and kick-starting growth in the economy need to be the new Government’s first priorities. However, for many of my constituents, it is what is outside their front door that matters most.

Let us imagine walking out of our homes every day to see a big pile of black sacks, broken furniture and kids’ toys at the corner of our streets. That is not the first thing we want to see on our way to work. Then, let us imagine we have invited our family or some friends around that evening. It is embarrassing to ask people to pick their way through sacks of rubbish and furniture when they come to visit. As one of my constituents told me,

“It’s disheartening to go out of your house.”

Another told me:

“I dream of the day I don’t have to pick my way through piles of rubbish to get down the street.”

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

In my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale, communities in Morecambe in particular are blighted by fly-tipping. I have noticed the damage that has done to their feelings of community pride. When someone treats people’s streets like a rubbish dump, it makes those people feel like rubbish. I thank my hon. Friend for recognising the psychological impact on communities. Does she agree that there is a deeply psychological impact and that this is not merely a matter of street cleansing?

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is certainly right: that, too, is the experience of my constituents in Ealing Southall, where they have very much said that this is an issue of pride in their community. Much research has also been done on what is called the “broken windows syndrome”, in which fly-tipping also encourages crime and antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend is certainly right in that regard.

My residents in Ealing Southall have identified Beaconsfield Road and Bridge Road, along with George Street in Hanwell, as key hotspots, but there many more. In fact, more than a million cases of fly-tipping are recorded every year in this country. Of course, many will not be recorded at all as communities just give up. One third of all fly-tipping takes place in London and eight London authorities were in the top 10 areas with the highest number of fly-tipping incidents in England, according to the most recent statistics. I am afraid to say that all too often it is the poorest areas of the country that are most likely to face such issues. That is due to overcrowded housing and a lack of outside space for bins, which are particular issues in London.

There are some great organisations fighting the scourge of fly-tipping. In Ealing, LAGER Can, whose representatives are here today watching the debate, does amazing work in partnership with the council—not just to clear litter, but to clear and report fly-tips. Nationally, Keep Britain Tidy has strenuously campaigned on the issue. The previous Government periodically announced new crackdowns on fly-tipping, but has that made a difference? I do not think my constituents in Ealing Southall noticed any improvements in 14 years of that Government’s supposed crackdowns; in fact, it is clear the problem has got worse.

Why did the previous Government fail to get a grip on the issue? First, only about 1% of fly-tips result in a court prosecution. That is because councils lost about two thirds of their funding over 14 years of Tory austerity, so they cannot afford to pay for the detailed and expensive investigations needed to take a fly-tipper to court. Even if they do try to take a fly-tipper to court, the average fine is only about £500, which does not pay the council’s costs. It is much quicker and cheaper for the council to just pick up the fly-tip. That solves the immediate problem, but of course people then start to think, “Well, I can dump my mattress or these few bags of rubbish on the corner because the council will pick them up.”

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does she agree that when councils seek to investigate, prosecute and prevent fly-tipping, they should be able to recover the full cost, including when issuing fixed penalty notices to those who are guilty? After all, it is the polluter who should pay.

[Deirdre Costigan]

I certainly agree. I will return later to my hon. Friend’s point about making the polluter pay. Currently it is certainly not worth councils’ time or money in many instances to take fly-tippers to court because the fines, and indeed the sentencing, do not act as a deterrent. Some people feel it is okay to leave their rubbish at the end of the street because the council will pick it up. This is a vicious cycle and we need to break it.

Secondly, in the small number of cases that do go to court, magistrates do not take the issue seriously enough or understand how fly-tipping blights the life of local communities. The sentencing just is not enough to make people think twice. The criminals who make a pretty penny by offering to take away waste for 20 quid tell the court they are unemployed, so they get away with not having to pay. The waste carrier licensing system is also so lax that it is hard for someone to lose their licence, even if they have broken the rules and been convicted.

Thirdly, there is a problem with housing in London. We know that there is not enough of it and that is why this Government have committed to building 1.5 million new homes. Right now, in Ealing Southall, there are people living in overcrowded accommodation, where there is often not enough space for a bin. I have also been told by many of my constituents that tenants sometimes illegally sub-let a room, but insist that the new tenant does not use the rubbish bins so that the landlord does not find out.

Finally, there is just too much waste in the first place. As a nation, we are drowning in unnecessary packaging, single-use drink containers, and household items that are difficult and expensive to recycle. We have to be honest about fly-tipping. In a Keep Britain Tidy study, one in five people in London admitted that they had fly-tipped themselves—this is often black-sack fly-tipping. It is simply not an excuse that the council is not doing enough because every council in London offers a free kerbside collection for black-sack rubbish. However, people often do not see this as fly-tipping, and it is very difficult to change their behaviour. No amount of education seems to work.

Trying to stop people from fly-tipping is a huge challenge. Keep Britain Tidy has piloted a number of schemes, including in Newham, that have had some success, but the schemes often simply move fly-tipping to the next road. Some councils have tried community skips, including my neighbouring authority of Brent. However, despite the council’s hard work, Brent sadly still has the highest fly-tipping rate in London, at 34,000 incidents a year. Although residents like the community skip, it does not stop people from fly-tipping.

The recycling charity WRAP has found that there is no evidence at all to link free bulky waste disposal with a reduction in fly-tipping. Even the Conservative Hampshire County Council acknowledged that fly-tipping did not increase when it started to charge for DIY waste. Just as it is clear that there is not one cause of fly-tipping, so it follows that there is not one answer.

This is a complex problem that needs a number of different approaches. Crucially, it needs to be led by Government, not by cash-strapped councils. We need a national strategy to combat fly-tipping, which will bring together the Environment Agency, councils, Keep Britain Tidy, waste disposal authorities and other stakeholders to crack this problem once and for all.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. The Environment Agency found that 86% of farmers have been affected by fly-tipping this year. However, many of those incidents are not reported because the reporting process is time-consuming, confusing and frustrating, and it does not stack up for farmers to do it. So they clear the waste themselves. Does the hon. Member agree that a single reporting mechanism needs to be developed to help farmers and land managers? I appreciate that the hon. Member is leading a very urban debate, but I think that the mechanism is important. A single mechanism should be in place so that a fly-tip should have to be reported only once.

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. As she has said, Ealing Southall is certainly not a rural area of the country. However, my father’s family are from Tipperary, and they were farmers; I do appreciate, and am well aware, of the cost of fly-tipping to farmers in particular. As it is on private land, they are, in most cases, liable for the costs of removal themselves. It is a massive issue, and I do hope that we will hear from others today on that issue. Certainly, there is more that we can do on reporting because, as I said earlier, the reports that we currently have are only the tip of the iceberg as a lot of communities just do not report.

Having gone through the problems and realised that the solutions are complex, what solutions do I feel should be included in the national strategy? To combat the organised criminals, we need a national fly-tip investigation team. Why should environmental crime not be taken as seriously as other types of organised crime? We need national financial investigators who can use proceeds of crime laws to go after the assets of these criminals and hit them in their pockets, where it really hurts.

We also need sentencing guidelines to be reviewed so that the courts do not continue to allow fly-tippers to get away with it. We need to reform the waste carrier licensing scheme so that it is worth the paper that it is written on. We need stronger rules for bins when houses are broken up into flats; I am delighted that Ealing council is introducing a new requirement for planning permission for HMOs—houses in multiple occupation. But we need to ensure that waste facilities are rigorously assessed as part of landlord licensing schemes and before permission is given for flat conversions, and that councils have the funding to carry out those inspections.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for the progress she is making on such an important topic. Keep Manchester Tidy established a partnership with Manchester city council to encourage residents to actively help make their communities cleaner. As part of that strategy this year, Manchester saw its highest number of volunteers supporting the national Great British Spring Clean, with more than 100 litter-picking events and more than 2,000 litter-pickers. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking all the volunteers who work extremely hard to make our communities cleaner and greener? Does she agree that they should not have to do this in the first place?

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I certainly agree that the work of local volunteers is hugely beneficial in preventing this problem from being even worse than it is at the moment. I know that, in Ealing, we would not survive without the work of our great friends in LAGER Can, and it sounds as if my hon. Friend has similarly civic-minded residents in his constituency too. I congratulate them on the work that they have done.

The most obvious answer to the fly-tipping crisis is to reduce waste in the first place. Let us turn off the tap of all of the waste that we see on our streets. That could be a real game changer. I know that the Minister has already committed to introducing a deposit return scheme for drinks containers by 2027 that would mean that empty cans and bottles could be returned to shops to get a deposit back. As well as cutting down on empty cans and bottles in black-sack fly-tips, research by Eunomia found that a return scheme could save councils in England up to £35 million annually. We could then spend that money on something else.

I hope that the Minister will consider the merits of a scheme that covers all reusable containers, including glass, from the outset, and it would be useful if she laid out a timetable for bringing that forward. Manufacturers should contribute to the costs to councils of clear-up by providing more take-back services so that people can hand in old furniture and mattresses when they buy new ones. The big prize is to persuade manufacturers to make their goods fully recyclable; the best way to do that is to make them pay for the cost of disposal. That is based on the idea of making the polluter pay. I hope the Minister will also set out a timetable for that approach, known as extended producer responsibility. It will encourage manufacturers to stop producing so much packaging and items that cannot be easily recycled.

Fly-tipping is not a low-level crime. It stops people from feeling proud of where they live, it encourages other crime and antisocial behaviour, and it costs millions of pounds to clean up—money that could be used for vital public services. I look forward to the Minister giving my constituents in Ealing Southall confidence that, after over a decade of inaction by the Conservatives, this new Labour Government will finally take fly-tipping seriously, with a national fly-tipping strategy, stiffer penalties for the culprits, and ways of reducing waste in the first place.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

If a Member intends to catch my eye in the debate, they must be on their feet now. I will impose a time limit of five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank all those who contributed to the debate. I am delighted that there was so much interest in it; that makes it clear that fly-tipping is extremely important to people across the country and not just to my constituents in Ealing Southall.

I am delighted to hear that the Minister takes fly-tipping seriously. I am particularly happy to hear that she has understood the need to make sure that we stop waste in the first place—that we turn off the tap of waste. I am also delighted that she is taking seriously the need to make sure both that there are stiffer penalties for offenders and that the waste carrier system works better than it does currently. I know that my constituents in Ealing Southall will be happy to hear that fly-tipping will now be a priority for the Minister, and I hope we will move towards the national strategy that we need.