Global Plastics Treaty

Simon Opher Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I will call Dr Simon Opher to move the motion and I believe there will be one other small speech before the Minister responds. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up on this occasion, as this is only a 30-minute debate.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Global Plastics Treaty.

I thank you, Dr Huq, for chairing this debate, and the Minister for attending. Plastic pollution is putting all of Earth’s systems under stress. There is no corner of the world, from the top of Mount Everest to the bottom of the ocean, that is untouched by plastic pollution. Microplastics are accumulating in our bodies, in our vital organs, and in breast milk and placentas, and current levels of plastic production expose us to more than 16,000 harmful chemicals daily and to increasing volumes of microplastics.

Plastic pollution is putting the Earth’s ecosystems and natural processes under serious strain, worsening climate change, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification and land use—and if you think the situation is bad now, it could be much worse in decades to come. Plastic production, which is already far too high for our planet’s systems to cope with, is set to triple by 2050. The impact on climate change will be monumental. In its current state and with its current growth trajectory, plastic production will make achieving net zero impossible.

Plastic production already has a global warming impact four times greater than that of the aviation industry, with 90% of emissions coming during the production process. By 2050, half of global oil demand will come from petrochemicals. Plastic production is out of control, and everyone agrees that there is a problem. In 2022, 175 countries agreed to come together to hammer out a global treaty to address plastic pollution, but after two years and with four out of five scheduled rounds of negotiations completed, we are still in the dark about what the treaty will really look like.

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

I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this important debate. The last Government oversaw soaring rates of plastic incineration, and delays to modest waste reforms such as deposit return schemes, while also refusing to support proposals to cut plastic production by 40% by 2040, which were put forward at the last round of the treaty negotiations. Does the hon. Member agree that the new Government must raise their ambition levels, and that the best way to do so is to deliver a global plastics treaty that meaningfully cuts plastic production?

[Dr Opher]

I certainly do agree with you, and it is one reason that I am delivering this speech; thank you for that.

It might seem obvious that plastic pollution cannot be addressed without significant cuts to the production of plastics, but that is the most controversial and politically challenging aspect of the treaty. Those involved want us to believe that we can recycle our way out of this crisis—something we know not to be true. Plastic can be recycled only a finite number of times, simply delaying the inevitable moment when it is burned or dumped in landfill, or even escapes into our environment. The fact is that oversupply of virgin plastics at ever lower prices is undermining the UK’s ambition to create a circular economy here in the UK.

Earlier this week, the BBC reported that a recycling site in Avonmouth, near Bristol—which is near my constituency of Stroud—is closing down due to low recycling rates and challenging market conditions. Last month, the industry body Plastics Recyclers Europe raised the alarm about a downward trend in plastics recycling as a result of the global glut of cheap virgin plastics. Flooding the world with cheap plastic allows no space for reuse and refill systems, and the recycling industry, to develop.

Here in the UK, we deal with an excess of plastic waste by burning it and dumping it on poorer countries that do not have the infrastructure to deal with it. Both practices were allowed to increase under the previous Government, as the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) said, and the public are rightly outraged. That is why many of my constituents have written to me about plastic pollution, and more than half a million people have signed a petition calling for a strong global plastics treaty.

Earlier this year, over 220,000 people decided to take part in the Big Plastic Count—a massive citizen science project where individuals count every piece of plastic waste that they dispose of for a week. The results showed that the UK throws away 1.7 billion pieces of plastic each week, with 58% of that being incinerated, producing toxic fumes and greenhouse gases. Incineration is the UK’s dirtiest form of power generation, and incinerators are three times more likely to be placed in poorer neighbourhoods, as was the case with the one built recently in the Stroud area.

Fortunately, the new Government have taken bold steps to tackle plastic pollution. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made zero waste one of the Department’s core missions, and has set up a circular economy taskforce.

[Sarah Dyke]

My constituent Catherine Conway is the founder of GoUnpackaged, the world’s first modern zero-waste shop, which is hugely reducing the use of single-use plastics. She is also part of the Refill Coalition, which is developing and testing a standardised solution to deliver refills at scale in store and online. Does the hon. Member agree that zero-waste solutions such as these have a big role to play in accelerating the transition to a more circular economy that maximises the recovery, reuse, recycling and remanufacturing of products?

[Dr Opher]

Thank you—

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. The Clerk is telling me that “you” is not usually used to refer to other Members, only to the Chair. The Clerk keeps telling me to say this; I have restrained myself so far, but it is one of the conventions of this unusual workplace.

[Dr Opher]

I do apologise, Dr Huq. I shall try to do better.

As I was saying, the Environment Secretary has made zero waste one of the Department’s core missions, and has set up a circular economy taskforce. This is a good move and will create jobs in repair, rental and recycling, as well as will significantly reducing CO2 emissions. The reuse of plastics, and not just recycling, is also incredibly important. It has perhaps dropped down the agenda a little, and we need to emphasise the point, so I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton for her intervention.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member agree that these treaties are great in theory, but that support is needed to reach the targets, and that that support must not simply be in the form of help for developing nations? The steps needed are understandable and necessary, but they must start at home at the local council level, with additional funding to allow our nation to pull up our own socks and make meaningful differences to our plastic production and use.

[Dr Opher]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. I do believe that green initiatives and recycling have to begin at home; we have to do our own bit first and then spread the word.

The Government signed the Bridge to Busan declaration, joining over 40 countries in reaffirming the need for plastic production cuts to be included in the final treaty. The treaty needs to go further; we need a treaty that delivers a strong global target to cut plastic production, that is ambitious about the level of cuts to global production, and that is specific about how much to cut production and by when, with a global target that is legally binding.

The plastics treaty is the third time in quick succession that this Government’s international climate and nature leadership has been tested. The UK demonstrated our ambitions at the biodiversity COP in Cali, Colombia, and was one of the only countries to announce a genuinely ambitious nationally determined contribution at the COP29 in Baku. The plastics treaty is another vital opportunity for the UK to demonstrate once again that it is a progressive actor on the world stage, prepared to face down polluting industries and to put the brakes on the climate and nature emergency. That leadership role is needed now more than ever, particularly in sustainable energy and in recycling.

Other countries are looking to the UK, reinvigorated by our new Government, to give the treaty process the injection of impetus and ambition that it needs to get over the line. My ask of the Government today is this: are they willing to demonstrate international leadership and commit to doing everything possible to bring the treaty over the line?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend. I am not meant to show bias, but The Deep is fantastic; we should all go and visit it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it does incredible work in educating children about ocean conservation, nature and plastic use. It is an amazing asset for the constituency I represent, and its work is highly regarded internationally.

I move on to talk about the treaty in more detail. After two years of negotiations, we are approaching the fifth and final scheduled meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating committee, which starts on 25 November. The executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, Inger Andersen, has referred to this treaty as

“the most significant environmental multilateral deal since the Paris accord.”

We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to agree an ambitious treaty to end plastic pollution, and that is why an agreement at Busan this year is critical. If we are to stop plastic entering the environment at an increasing rate, we need a treaty that provides actions at all stages of the plastics life cycle. We are proud, as a country, to be a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution. That coalition includes more than 60 countries, and calls for an ambitious and effective treaty that will end plastic pollution by 2040. In September, the High Ambition Coalition published a ministerial statement calling for an ambitious treaty that covers the full life cycle of plastics, including design, production, consumption and end of life. Then, on 24 September, the UK signed the Bridge to Busan declaration, which makes the case for an ambitious treaty that includes upstream measures to ensure the sustainable consumption and production of primary plastic polymers.

It is critical that the new treaty on plastic pollution takes action across the entire life cycle, including production and consumption. The evidence is clear that we cannot solve the problem of plastic pollution unless we take action at every stage. Global plastic production is projected to double by 2050, reaching 800 million metric tonnes annually. Evidence shows that on current trends, waste management infrastructure will not be able to keep up with the pace of plastic production and consumption, and the level of mismanaged plastic waste will continue to rise. That is why the UK supports binding provisions in the treaty to reduce the production and consumption of primary plastic polymers to sustainable levels, and to enable the transition to a circular economy.

To end plastic pollution, we need all actors in the plastics value chain to act. That includes national and local governments, and the private and financial sectors. We need to bring everyone along with us. That includes the marginalised, undervalued and unrecognised waste pickers, most of whom are women. They handle more than half the world’s plastic waste for recycling, so it is important that their voices are heard.

We have partnered with the Ocean Plastics Leadership Network to run the UK treaty dialogues ahead of each round of negotiations. The dialogues include actors at all stages of the plastic value chains, as well as from academia and environmental non-governmental organisations. Those dialogues have helped us understand the views on the treaty to inform our approach to negotiations.

On 6 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I, in conjunction with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, hosted a plastic pollution treaty roundtable for business leaders, retailers and financial institutions. We discussed the importance of agreeing an ambitious, legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. Participants also signed a statement setting out the key elements that the treaty must include in order to end plastic pollution by 2040.

Many businesses and organisations are leading the way already. An example of this is the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, which has been joined by more than 85 organisations, including major global businesses, financial institutions and NGOs. The UK scientific community is also world-leading and playing an active role in ensuring that the treaty negotiations are grounded in science, as well as developing the solutions and innovations that will help us take action on this issue.

However, we also recognise the importance of mobilising support for countries most in need, in order to implement the treaty, and this is an essential element of its effectiveness. We can end plastic pollution only through globally co-ordinated action and by mobilising and aligning financial flows from all sources, including all actors and stakeholders across the full plastics value chain at both the global and the local stage. The UK supports the use of the Global Environmental Facility to support the implementation of the treaty. It has established a track record of supporting environmental agreements on climate and biodiversity.

[Dr Opher]

Does the Minister know why there is no shadow Minister here to contribute to the debate for the Opposition?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I can answer that, actually. It is only a 30-minute debate, so it is very bare bones and there is no opportunity for the mover of the motion to respond and no Opposition spokesperson. It is not that they did not turn up.

[Dr Opher]

Okay. Thank you.

[Emma Hardy]

I have to say that this is one thing on which I believe there is cross-party consensus. There seems to be an awful lot of support for the treaty, and I hope that that unity continues, especially as we are going into incredibly difficult negotiations. It is really important for us as a country to stand united behind the treaty and what it means if we are not only to seek an agreement, but to ensure that it is fulfilled. I would like to hope that everyone agrees on how important this is, but I am an optimist—what can I say?

The UK is already the largest donor to the Global Plastic Action Partnership, which brings together Governments, businesses and civil society to tackle plastic pollution and increase investment in circular economy approaches in countries eligible for official development assistance.

I was asked what we are doing as a country to reduce plastic packaging. We plan to lay regulations on a deposit return scheme for drinks containers in England and Northern Ireland before Parliament in late 2024—hopefully before Christmas—for them to come into force in early 2025, assuming that parliamentary time allows. The planned launch date of the scheme is October 2027. If we are going to argue what other countries need to do, it is important that we are seen to be taking action ourselves. I really appreciate that companies—my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) mentioned one in her constituency—are promoting innovative and more sustainable solutions to plastic pollution, especially from single-use plastics.

Plastic pollution is one of the greatest long-term global challenges we face, and the UK is committed to working with the chair and members of the intergovernmental negotiating committee to reach an agreement. All parties are committed to seeking to conclude negotiations on the treaty by the end of 2024. We need to secure a robust, ambitious treaty to accelerate action at pace and scale, and that is what the UK team will be pushing for in Busan.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud again for securing the debate, and I thank everyone else who has supported it.

Question put and agreed to.

Proposed Salt Marshes: Pawlett Hams

Simon Opher Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the environmental impact of the proposed salt marshes at Pawlett Hams and other sites.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I welcome the Minister to her place.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to move the motion, which concerns an issue of great importance to my constituents in Bridgwater. I asked for this debate to discuss EDF’s plans to establish a salt marsh at Pawlett Hams in Somerset. The proposal was highly unpopular with the local community. In fact, it was difficult to find anyone who thought it was a good idea, and when I met representatives from EDF, even they seemed a little half-hearted about it.

Why, one might ask, does EDF, which is building the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station a few miles down the coast, want to flood 800 acres of beautiful Somerset countryside and turn it into a salt marsh? The answer is complex. When EDF was given planning permission to build Hinkley Point C, it was required to take measures to mitigate damage to marine life caused by the water intake pipes, which are situated in the Bristol channel and, as one might imagine, there is a risk of harm to fish, which might get sucked into them.

EDF originally set out three proposals to minimise the risk of harm to marine life. The first involved designing special low-velocity, side-entry water intake pipes, with a capped head design. These reduce the number of fish that are sucked into the pipe as they swim past the end. The second was a fish recovery and return system, which means that a good proportion of the fish that swim into the intake pipe are returned to the sea, with minimal injury. That is not a perfect system, but it is certainly one that will save the more resilient species.

The third was that EDF was required to install an acoustic fish deterrent, or AFD. This involves the installation of a number of underwater sound projectors that play a constant loud noise that is designed to stop fish approaching the area of the intake pipes. EDF now says that it is unable to install the AFD, because of engineering difficulties and health and safety risks to the divers who would need to maintain the system. To deviate from the AFD proposals, EDF has to submit a material change application. As part of the application, it is working with the Environment Agency to agree several compensatory habitat measures to deliver benefit to the estuary’s qualifying habitat.

EDF says that it is putting forward a mosaic of mitigation measures. Some of them seem sensible and beneficial to the natural ecosystem in and around the Severn estuary: for example, the creation of several hectares of seagrass in the estuary and a commitment to delivering 15 hectares of kelp forest. It is also considering upgrades to several weirs to benefit migratory fish. The most significant proposal, however, and the one that brings us to Westminster Hall today, is the creation of 800 acres of salt marsh.

At the beginning of this year, EDF consulted on the salt marsh being established in Pawlett Hams, in my constituency. Pawlett Hams is a precious ecosystem. EDF’s plans to flood the area with saltwater would endanger not just the land itself, but the myriad species that call it home. It would transform the biodiverse habitat into barren, species-poor salt marsh and tidal mud. What is most extraordinary about EDF’s plans is that the Hams is an area of great ecological importance. It forms part of the Bridgwater bay site of special scientific interest, which was first declared in 1989 and recognises the area as one of particular interest to science, due to the rare species of flora and fauna that it contains. There is a lush, biodiverse habitat for many animals in the Hams, including lapwings, redshanks, otters, water voles, water beetles, great crested newts and yellow wagtails. Those species would be driven out if the area was turned into a salt marsh. The Hams provide valuable grazing for local farmers that would also be lost.

EDF’s plan was a disaster, and even if it went ahead it was not clear how it would mitigate the problem of the fish that would be lost. I made my views abundantly clear to EDF over the months, so I was delighted when, a day after making a request for this debate, it announced that it is pausing its proposal. EDF says that it is now considering four other potential sites for salt marshes in the Severn estuary, at Kingston Seymour, Littleton, Arlingham and Rodley.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his detail and his excellent summary of exactly what is being proposed in Arlingham. The proposal was put to the people of Arlingham, they had a large meeting on Monday evening and, almost universally, there was a feeling that this was not a good idea for people there or for their landscape. Many of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has put across are the same in Arlingham. It seems rather strange that the Arlingham site and salt marsh will somehow compensate for or mitigate the predicted loss of about 182 million fish; I do not think there is any way we can say that those two match each other. Although I support the principle of habitat creation and acknowledge the benefits of the salt marsh, does the Minister share my concern that EDF’s application to modify Hinkley Point C’s consent order seems like an unacceptably high price for an environmentally unique habitat to pay?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I will leave the Minister to answer those points, if I may.