Global Plastics Treaty

Debate between John Lamont and Richard Foord

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, much of which I agree with. I am sure that he, like me, visits many schools. Does he agree that when he visits them and speaks to young people, they are very, very concerned about the environment, and in particular plastic pollution? In many ways, our great hope is that their laser focus on this issue will be reflected in the policy of future generations and that plastic production is reduced.

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Gentleman is dead right. Children from Sidmouth primary school wrote to me earlier in the year, urging me to advocate for reduced plastic use and for cutting down our plastic use. I quoted them in a debate and the Minister for Nature, who is no longer in her place, summed up the debate with their words.

Let us be honest: voluntary efforts have failed. The World Wildlife Fund reports that in the past five years plastic pollution has increased by 50%, despite a 60% rise in national and voluntary initiatives. The treaty must therefore tackle the source of the problem—the production of plastic—and confront the power of the fossil fuel lobby, which is desperately trying to water down the talks. At last year’s round of negotiations, 220 fossil fuel lobbyists were present in Busan. Their goal was to protect their own profit, not the planet. We cannot allow short-term commercial interests to derail the long-term health of our oceans and communities. Plastic production is forecast to triple by 2040. If we do not act, no recycling scheme will be enough.

I will hand my last paragraph to the children at Sidmouth primary school. They want to see “deeds, not words”.

Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution

Debate between John Lamont and Richard Foord

Monday 14th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 725716 relating to the prosecution of Northern Ireland veterans.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. As a member of the Petitions Committee, I am pleased to fulfil my duty in opening today’s debate and presenting this petition, which has been signed by more than 170,000 people.

I thank the petition’s creator, Ian Liles, who joins us in the Public Gallery today. Ian spent 36 years in the Army, including 13 years in Northern Ireland. I know that Members will thank him, and all the veterans in the Gallery and those watching across the country, for their service.

The petition states:

“We think that the Government should not make any changes to legislation that would allow Northern Ireland Veterans to be prosecuted for doing their duty in combating terrorism as part of ‘Operation Banner’.”

The role that British soldiers play in keeping our country safe cannot be overstated. They put their lives on the line to defend our country, and they put themselves in harm’s way to do so. But there is a shadow that hangs over our armed forces today—a political and legal attack that is targeting veterans of Northern Ireland who served under Operation Banner.

In recent weeks, I have had the privilege of speaking to organisations and campaigners across communities in Northern Ireland. I have also heard from many of my constituents in the Scottish Borders who feel passionately about the need to protect our veterans from prosecution. I thank hon. and right hon. Members across this House for their advice and guidance in preparing for today’s debate. I pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who raised this issue at Prime Minister’s questions last week, as well as the Minister for Veterans in the last Government, Johnny Mercer, for his work to protect and defend Northern Ireland veterans during his time around the Cabinet table.

This Labour Government have taken the decision to repeal the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I believe that decision will shame our country for decades to come. Operation Banner took place between 1969 and 2007. It was a name given to the operations by British forces in Northern Ireland to stop IRA attacks, spanning Labour and Conservative Governments and seven Prime Ministers. The previous Conservative Government introduced the legacy Act, which was designed to end the shameful spectacle of British veterans being dragged through the courts for actions taken decades ago, when they were simply following the orders of the Government of the day.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Military personnel have a term for passing the buck: sloping shoulders. Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that, with the measures we are discussing, the state risks sloping shoulders on to personnel who swore an oath of allegiance?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point, which I will consider more fully later.

In 1998, as the then Prime Minister Tony Blair approached the end of his negotiations on the Good Friday agreement, one final demand was made. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness said that they could not go ahead with the deal—they were fearful of community pushback and wanted to give terrorists amnesty from prosecution. So a deal was done. On-the-run letters were given to suspected IRA terrorists, telling them that they were no longer wanted. The letters gave protection to terrorists, but nothing was offered to the soldiers who served in Northern Ireland.

The years that followed saw historical cases, which were investigated at the time, being re-examined. Veterans were dragged to court on politically motivated charges—a witch hunt—and that is why we needed the legacy Act. The Secretary of State and this Labour Government now want to repeal the protection afforded to soldiers as a result of that legislation. We are told that will be achieved by removing parts of the legacy Act via a remedial order, and that the Government will later introduce new primary legislation.

The Prime Minister’s Northern Ireland veterans tsar has said that this immoral “two-tier justice” will lead to “vexatious lawfare” against former soldiers. It sets a dangerous historical precedent. Are we now saying that if the Government send our troops into conflict, soldiers could be held to account in years to come for following the instructions given to them by this Government? If that is the case, why would anybody choose to serve our country? That is the reality facing many of our Northern Ireland veterans today. During my preparations for this debate, I spoke to one group who said that, should the legacy Act be revoked, the number of veterans prosecuted would be only in the low single figures, but that is still too many. It fails to recognise the worry and anxiety that it will cause our veterans, many of whom are in old age, and their families.

Let me be clear: if soldiers went out with murderous intent, they should be held to account. The rule of law should apply to those soldiers as it applies to the rest of us. However, the petition creator told me that he knows of no soldier who went out deliberately to murder. It is also important to remember that, when someone was killed during the troubles, it was investigated—sometimes three times, by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the police and the coroner’s court.