Air Pollution

Uma Kumaran Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for leading this debate and, as ever, for his gentle but decisive prose. Members will be pleased, I am sure, to hear that my remarks will be a bit shorter.

Toxic air is a public health crisis—it is also an environmental crisis, but the health element, especially for our children, is what concerns me today. Air pollution can stunt the growth of children’s lungs, hamper foetal development and contribute to cancer, heart disease, dementia and even mental health conditions. Our air can become an invisible killer, but sadly, because we do not see it, we do not quite understand it.

Every single year, an estimated 30,000 deaths are attributable to long-term exposure to dirty air, and, at one point, in Newham—one of the boroughs I represent—1.7 in every 100 deaths were caused by air pollution. In 2013, one of those 30,000 was a nine-year-old girl. We have already heard her name today: Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. She died following an asthma attack. Thanks to the tireless campaigning of Ella’s mum, Rosamund, who demanded answers and pushed for justice for her daughter, Ella became the first person in the UK for whom air pollution is listed as an official cause of death. I know Rosamund from my time working for the Mayor of London, so I saw her tireless work at first hand—her advocacy has been incredible. It was a landmark decision: Ella was exposed to excessive levels of pollution. The toxic air cut her beautiful life short, and robbed a family of their sister and a mother of her daughter. Their lives have never been the same since.

That is the price that our younger citizens paid for our inaction. If the air in Ella’s neighbourhood had been safe, and if she had not been exposed to toxic gases, she would have been in her 20s today—probably a trailblazer in her own right, but we will never know. That is the human cost of our negligence. No child should suffer as Ella did, and no family or mother should have to go through what they did.

We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past by failing this generation of young people. It is clear that, with political will, creativity and resolve, we can turn the tide. I was there for the inception of ULEZ, and I am proud to have been part of the team who worked on it from 2016 onwards. In the five years since it came in, the Mayor of London’s bold approach has reduced London’s nitrogen oxide levels by over 40%—that is no small feat. It has reduced fine particulate pollution levels by around 30%. These are not pie-in-the-sky statistics. That work is driving down hospital admissions, protecting the health of children and pensioners alike, and easing the burden on our NHS.

[John McDonnell]

In London, a large number of individual politicians, including the mayor, had a rough time introducing ULEZ. It is time that we congratulate him on that achievement and on the way in which he courageously faced down the opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Uma Kumaran]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. For some Members on the right, particularly those representing outer London suburbs, that issue has become the newest punching bag. This should not be about party politics; it should be about cleaning up our polluted air.

In just five years, we have seen the difference here in London thanks to bold leadership from our mayor, Sadiq Khan. Dirty air is deadly, but the future is in our hands. We have shown that progress is possible and that we can turn the tide. This should not be a controversial thing. Breathing clean air should not be a privilege reserved just for children in postcodes in leafy suburbs. We would never expect anyone to drink dirty water, so why are we accepting the breathing of dirty air? That is the simple premise behind Ella’s law, which I am very proud to support as a signatory. That legislation, the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, makes one clear claim: every person has the right to breathe clean air.

I welcome the fact that the Government have identified clean air as a priority for the 10-year health plan. In that spirit, I urge the Minister to take a fresh look at our national targets and our legal pollution limits, and to commit to introducing Ella’s law to tackle the serious air pollution challenges and cut down the causes of toxic pollution. Everyone has the right to breathe clean air, no matter where they live or who they are. That should be the thing that unites this whole House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I commend the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) on securing this important debate. He has spoken about the issue many times in this place, so I know it is one that he cares deeply about.

Air pollution is one of the greatest public health and environmental challenges facing our country today: it contributes to thousands of premature deaths every year, worsens respiratory diseases, harms our natural environment and, as was outlined in the contributions of many hon. Members, places an enormous amount of pressure on our NHS. All of that reduces productivity and participation in the workplace, costing the UK economy about £27 billion annually. That is largely due to healthcare costs, productivity losses and reduced quality of life. When wider impacts such as dementia are accounted for, the economic cost of air quality not being addressed may be as high as £50 billion.

Air pollution also disproportionately affects the most deprived communities—13% of people in the most deprived neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom live in the 10% of areas with the highest air pollution, compared with only 7% of people in the least deprived neighbourhoods. The health impacts of that are seismic, as exposure to air pollution can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer. It can also cause damage to the reproductive and central nervous systems, as has also been mentioned by several Members. In particular, exposure to air pollution in childhood can have lasting, lifelong effects and can affect cognitive development or increase the risk of developing a chronic disease. Health risks from exposure to air pollution should not be a postcode lottery. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform the Chamber what targeted action the Government will be taking to address that gap in exposure to poor air quality.

The Conservative party has a proud record when it comes to improving air quality, but there is much more to be done, as outlined in today’s contributions. Air quality in the UK has continually improved since 2010. The levels of all the key pollutants, bar ammonia, have fallen by over 70%, with levels of PM_2.5 and PM₁₀ falling by 27% and 20% respectively between 2014 and 2024. The previous Government’s 2019 clean air strategy was described by the World Health Organisation at the time as

“an example for the rest of the world to follow”.

The strategy set out the comprehensive action required to meet the legally binding targets to reduce emissions of the five key pollutants by 2020 and 2030 respectively.

The previous Government also passed the Environment Act 2021, which introduced statutory targets for PM_2.5 to achieve at least a 35% reduction in population exposure by 31 December 2040. Furthermore, the previous Administration’s 2023 environmental improvement plan set out a direction to support clean air, with measures including reducing the maximum emissions for domestic burning appliances in smoke-controlled areas by promoting best practices, challenging local authorities to rightly improve air quality, continuing to support the move away from petrol and diesel cars, and consulting on an extension to the existing North sea emission control area to cover the Irish sea, reducing emissions from shipping.

The roll-out of any strategy, legislation, guidance or regulation that focuses on improving air quality must also take into account the economic, social and environmental impact, so that the best strategy is adopted and there is the best buy-in from residents and businesses. Without their buy-in, air quality is simply not improved at the rate that we would all like to see. It is no good bringing out legislation that then has a wider detrimental effect.

That is why, as the official Opposition, we oppose the Government’s restrictions on wood-burning stoves. For many people living in rural areas, wood burners are an affordable, reliable and often essential source of heat where mains gas is unavailable and the alternatives are impractical and expensive to put in place.

We also committed to scrapping the zero emission vehicle mandate to reinvigorate the car manufacturing industry in Britain. There should still be a transition to cleaner transport, but it must be driven by affordability, practicality and technological progress. It should not be dictated by unrealistic mandates or the weakening of domestic manufacturing. Again, a balance must be struck if we are to improve air quality.

That is why a strategy of simply taxing motorists is just not the right approach. The Mayor of London’s expansion of ULEZ is having hugely damaging financial consequences on some of the poorest and most deprived residents and communities in London, as well as on many motorists and trade-related businesses.

[Uma Kumaran]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I would like to explore what the Mayor of London is doing for those travelling on the tube—the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) may be able to indicate this in her intervention, because I know she was involved—because there has been hardly any focus on that in the mayor’s strategy.

[Uma Kumaran]

The Conservatives in City Hall called the whole of ULEZ “bewildering” and have objected to it at every turn. I read out the statistics earlier: there has been a 40% reduction in nitrogen oxide levels and a huge positive impact in London from ULEZ. The Mayor of London won two decisive elections after its introduction. London has also been recognised as a global leader by the United Nations. The Secretary-General himself invited the Mayor of London to the United Nations to speak about ULEZ and London’s climate action. Should the hon. Member not congratulate London for its climate action and decisive air quality improvements, and actually support that good work?

[Robbie Moore]

I will specifically address that point, but I will use one further example before I do. The same approach as the ULEZ has been applied to the Bradford district, in which my constituency sits.

A clean air zone has been rolled out in Bradford, but it is a strategy that is again taxing motorists and some of the hardest-working people in our communities—including some of the most deprived communities, who are simply not able to afford the levels of tax imposed on them. Of course there are other ways of doing it, but before I come on to them I want to address the fact that if a resident or someone with a business on the outskirts of Bradford wants to travel into Bradford in a light goods vehicle, it now costs them £9 a day. That has a detrimental impact on business growth. It costs a coach driver, a heavy goods vehicle driver or a bus driver £50 a day to take their vehicle into Bradford. That is also having a huge detrimental impact.

Since the scheme was launched in 2023, £26.7 million has been raised. Of that, £9.8 million was raised through entry fees but £16.4 million was raised through penalty charge notices, the vast majority of which were for people who could not afford to pay, and who therefore had to go to court for that money to be extracted from them.

My point is that we cannot simply have a strategy that charges people if we want complete buy-in. That is why I use the example of the roll-out in Manchester. It will be interesting to see what the strategy of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will be, because when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester he opposed a chargeable clean air zone tax across Greater Manchester. Indeed, at the time, all five local authorities that make up Greater Manchester also heavily lobbied the Government for a non-charging approach to be adopted. Such an approach was therefore signed off, which resulted in investment in electrification, upgrade grants and traffic control measures. Those were all rolled out in Manchester—approved by the former Mayor of Greater Manchester, the right hon. Member for Makerfield—and they had buy-in at the local level.

I would therefore simply say in response to the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow that there are other ways of doing it, rather than simply having a taxing approach. Will the Minister outline whether he has had discussions with the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who is likely to become the Prime Minister, about what the future clean air zone strategy will be under the new Administration? Will the Minister also outline the cost to the taxpayer of all the infrastructure that was put in place but not used for the roll-out of that clean air zone—a tax to the motorist—across the Greater Manchester area?

It is therefore vital that when we consider how to tackle air pollution and improve air quality, the Government work across Departments to ensure that there are no unintended adverse impacts on businesses and indeed on our rural communities. I absolutely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Brent West: we cannot have a siloed approach across Government. I therefore ask the Minister to provide an assurance that any forthcoming strategy will not be siloed just within DEFRA but will instead take a co-ordinated approach across Government.

Communities across the country continue to breathe polluted air every single day. It is an unfortunate thing to say, but that is the reality. We must do much more, with buy-in from businesses and residents, and only if it is not detrimental to driving local growth. Parents worry about children walking to school alongside congested roads and elderly residents and those living with asthma or heart disease face unnecessary health risks. Those are not abstract narratives; they are everyday realities for millions of people. We must, therefore, work together to ensure that all of our constituents breathe cleaner, healthier air.

To have a clean air strategy, we have to have buy-in from all and not just use a one-size-fits-all approach by taxing those in our communities who are most deprived. They are the ones who need to benefit from the clean air zone strategy because of where they live.

Fly-tipping: Residential Areas

Uma Kumaran Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this incredibly important debate.

I pay tribute to the South Park Users Group in Ilford South. Come rain or shine, they dedicate their time to keep our parks and streets clean through regular community litter picks. I also put on record my appreciation for the River Roding Trust, whose members collectively cleaned up 200 bags of rubbish from the River Roding, picking up the slack when Thames Water and the Environment Agency should have acted. I commend them for their dedication to ensuring that the residents of Ilford South live in a cleaner and safer environment.

Fly-tipping is a scourge that repeatedly comes up in conversations with residents. Recently, I visited a local school where children as young as 10 interrogated me about the fly-tipping that blights our area. The fly-tippers may think that they are invisible and that they can dump their waste and get away with it, but fly-tipping is one of the most visible crimes in our communities. When people see it on their way to work, on the school run or while walking their dog, it drains local pride, chips away at social trust and sends a message that our streets, parks and rivers do not matter.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

As a fellow east Londoner, I know that fly-tipping blights our streets and neighbourhoods; it shows a real lack of respect for our communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should commend the Government for putting the onus on fly-tippers by making sure that they pay—if they do the waste crime, they do the waste time—and making sure that they are responsible for cleaning up their own mess?

[Jas Athwal]

I absolutely agree. I have been saying for the last 10 years that that should be done. The Government finally acting is a real positive; we are going in the right direction.

Fly-tipping blights our area, but when the council removes it quickly, people feel it is okay to dump rubbish on our streets because someone will pick it up. We cannot win either way; it becomes a vicious cycle. The more that people see the local area as a dumping ground, the more some feel enabled to fly-tip, meaning that the problem spirals unless it is fully tackled.

I know from working with my local council that decisive steps are being taken to tackle this blight on our communities. For instance, it maintains free bulky waste collection, removing a lame excuse for fly-tipping. It is cheaper to pick up from people’s doorsteps in a controlled manner than from the streets once the waste has been dumped. Redbridge council has implemented not only that policy, but the wall of shame, which is an approach that has been adopted by other councils: naming and shaming to expose the waste cowboys who impose their mess on us. That sends a clear message that such behaviour is unacceptable in Ilford South and that those who fly-tip on our streets will be held accountable.

I welcome the decisive actions the Government have already taken to support local authorities battling fly-tipping, from expanding council powers to crushing the vehicles of serial fly-tippers and making offenders clean up the very streets and parks they have ruined. We need to go further to target the very worst offenders. The council needs to be able to set larger maximum fines to generally deter serial fly-tippers and to demonstrate that although fly-tipping may seem inconsequential to them, it is one of the worst forms of antisocial behaviour. With tough enforcement, councils could use extra revenue to fund detection—

Oral Answers to Questions

Uma Kumaran Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We absolutely recognise that food security is national security. He is right about the decline in herd sizes, but of course, there are other aspects here: we have seen higher productivity and changed genetics. It is a complicated picture, but I am happy to have further discussions with him on that.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to help prevent financial rewards for water company executives responsible for poor environmental performance.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What steps he is taking to increase the accountability of water company executives.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)]

The previous Conservative Government quite disgracefully let water bosses awards themselves more than £112 million in bonuses that they did not deserve. This Government are putting a stop to that. We have banned the payment of unfair bonuses and brought in new jail sentences for pollution offences. The Tory era of profiting from pollution is over.

[Uma Kumaran]

This weekend, for more than 30 hours, waste water from toilets, sinks and drains flooded the River Lea, affecting local communities and spreading to east London, including the wetlands in Stratford and Bow. Thames Water continues to dump sewage and waste water in our rivers at an alarming rate, all while company bosses pay themselves millions in bonuses. May I thank the Secretary of State for the work that this Government are doing to crack down on that appalling practice, and ask what he is doing to ensure that the British public are not paying for that failure after receiving rising water bills? What is he doing to secure the serious investment that is needed for the health of our rivers?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituents in east London, on this matter as on many others. With her support, this Government have secured a record £104 billion to upgrade crumbling pipes and build sewage treatment works across the country, so that we can cut sewage pollution. We have also ringfenced customers’ money, so that it can never again be diverted away from investment to pay for bonuses and dividends while sewage pollution got worse. That, of course, includes in the Lea valley.

Global Plastics Treaty

Uma Kumaran Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord); we usually sit together on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Nowhere is global co-operation more important than on climate work. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this important debate and for his brilliant speech, which eloquently set out why this issue is so important. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—not to be confused with Stratford—(Leigh Ingham) spoke about microplastics. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) had a debate on that very topic, in which many of us spoke. Following that, last November, ahead of the previous round of treaty negotiations in Busan, hon. Members came together to debate the same issue. Now, at the final round of negotiations, we have come back together. Countries are on the verge of finalising a potentially powerful international agreement, but its impact will be limited unless it addresses the root of the problem: plastic production.

UN estimates suggest that in the two and a half years since the treaty negotiations started, globally we have produced over 1 billion metric tonnes of plastic. The scale is staggering and almost unimaginable, but one thing is clear: no amount of recycling and reuse can keep up with the scale of plastic waste we are producing. If we do not act, collectively and urgently, the crisis will only escalate. Plastic production is projected to triple by 2060. Our climate, our ecosystems and our planet cannot cope. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the impact on our ecosystem and our beaches, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) mentioned single-use items, such as disposable vapes and disposable fans. One is dumped in Britain every 90 seconds. Most end up in the global south in landfills, risking massive environmental damage. I am proud to have sat on the Committee, led by the Minister, that considered the legislation to ban this. That is the Labour Government taking real action.

There are interest groups working to undermine our ambition. Having participated in international biodiversity and climate talks, both in my previous role before I entered this House and since, I have seen at first hand what that looks like: voices in the room determined to stall talks and undermine global and national ambition. As we have heard, the shocking truth is that 220 fossil fuel lobbyists were present at the last round of talks on the plastics treaty. Taken together, fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists would have been the single largest delegation present: larger than the EU and all its member states’ delegations; and larger than all those for Latin America. The fossil fuel industries outnumbered delegates from the Pacific small island states two to one. Those nations already see the effects of marine plastic pollution and are already paying the price for our inaction. We cannot allow the voice of the fossil fuel industry to be louder than the cry of our planet, or more influential than the testimony of science. We cannot allow it to be more powerful than the voices of our constituents and those wanting to create a more sustainable future for generations to come.

In London, we have shown that another future is possible. It requires bold leadership, and we are one such example of that. We are the world-leading city in eliminating single-use plastics from large sports and music venues, including “ABBA Voyage” in my constituency and locally-led movements like Plastic Free Forest Gate, which works with businesses on the high street to get rid of single-use plastic items, and Plastic Free Roman Road. I also have some eco-warriors in one of my local schools in Maryland. Last week, I met a group of constituents from Stratford and Bow at the climate coalition lobby in Parliament. Mary told me that she was there to lobby for an end to our dependency on fossil fuels. She was there for her four grandchildren—for their futures.

My constituents are clear: the time to act is now. We must put the people on our planet before the polluting industries. My constituency is home to an Earthshot prize-winning company, Notpla. The last time I mentioned Notpla in Parliament, it had single-handedly removed 21 million items of single-use plastic—and counting—using its innovative seaweed-based alternative; today, that number has risen to 26 million items. The ambition exists, but we all need to seize this moment. The cost of inaction is mass climate displacement, environmental destruction and worsening global instability.

I thank the Minister and the Government for their continued commitment to the UK’s global leadership in pushing for an ambitious treaty. I join Members from across the House in calling for all member states to agree to legally binding measures to address the production and consumption of plastic, and finally to deliver a treaty that meets the scale of the crisis for our planet.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Uma Kumaran Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing this important legislation.

Farming plays an important role in my constituency. Livestock worrying can cause serious injury, immense suffering and, in the worst cases, death to farm animals. These incidents are not only traumatic for farmers but result in significant financial losses. According to data from NFU Mutual, insurance claims for dog attacks on farm animals exceeded £1.8 million in 2023.

This Bill makes several improvements to the existing law. First, it creates a distinction between worrying and attacking livestock. That is important, because it allows the strengthening of police powers to respond more effectively to actual attacks. Currently, it is difficult for the police to collect evidence following an alleged attack. It is too easy for an owner to prevent police from collecting evidence, such as by taking samples of blood on fur. The Bill fixes that, ensuring that officers can act to collect evidence so long as they have reasonable grounds to believe an attack has happened.

The Bill will also allow officers to seize and detain a dog that is believed to have caused an attack. Unfortunately, too many dogs that worry livestock are what we might refer to as repeat offenders. This measure makes it easier to prevent the most dangerous dogs from causing further harm to livestock.

Perhaps the most important element of the Bill is the inclusion of roads and public paths within the scope of the existing legislation. As anyone who has ever tried to drive down a country lane will know, it is not uncommon for livestock to cross the lanes between fields. At the moment, if an animal is attacked when it is not in one of the farm fields, the responsibility falls on the farmer, rather than the owner of the dog, to prevent the worrying. Including roads and paths in this legislation is a simple measure to close this loophole and ensure that dog owners have to control their dogs around livestock at all times.

Lastly, I support the move to include camelids within the definition of livestock, which will protect the llamas and alpacas at the Animal Farm Adventure Park in Berrow in my constituency. I am delighted to support the Bill and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing it forward.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is my colleague and friend on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I congratulate her on reintroducing this important Bill. I know that she is personally and professionally dedicated to this matter.

Like many colleagues, I receive hundreds of emails from my constituents about animal welfare, and particularly the wellbeing and protection of farmed animals—we may not have a farm, but we care greatly about this issue. As a Londoner born and bred, I had not heard the phrase “livestock worrying” before the hon. Member asked me to serve on this Committee. I did know about incidents of animals being attacked on farms, but I was shocked to learn how widespread these incidents of dogs chasing, attacking or causing distress to livestock are, and about the financial and emotional impact of livestock worrying. I think we all agree that no animal should be made to suffer unnecessary pain, alarm or distress, and hearing the stories from Members on the Committee today has been moving and powerful.

This Bill is an important step to protect farm animals from dog attacks, strengthening police powers and promoting responsible dog ownership. As someone who was once the proud owner of a boisterous German shepherd called Prince, I know the importance of being a responsible dog owner, particularly with large dogs. For so many of us, treating animals, nature and our planet with care and respect is a mark of the type of society we want to be. That is why animal welfare and the protection of livestock is an issue that so often unites Members from across the House. I am therefore not surprised and am very pleased that this important Bill enjoys cross-party support and that the Labour Government are supporting it, to better protect the welfare of our livestock.

We should always strive for the highest possible animal welfare standards, so I welcome the Bill and congratulate the NFU on its hard work in lobbying on this important issue. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for reintroducing the Bill, for her efforts to bring it to this stage, securing cross-party support for these measures, and for saying the word “llama” to me more times this month than it has perhaps ever been said in the House before.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak briefly in this debate. I bumped into my neighbour, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, the other day and said, “Can I say a few words on Wednesday morning?” She said, “Well, no one else is going to be speaking, and they will want to get out as quickly as possible.”—but when I saw everybody stand up to speak this morning, I scribbled some notes, which I will happily put to the Committee.

I want to start by congratulating the hon. Member on her excellent speech and on appointing the most excellent Committee I have served on—I have served on three since my election to the House last July. Before my election to Parliament, I spent several years working on animal welfare, particularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn and the Minister. This is a little bit like the old days—but the view from the Government Benches is much better than the view from the Public Gallery at the back.

As the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury knows, my Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency borders hers, and many of my fields roll into hers across the county border. Both constituencies are home to wonderful, hard-working farmers, and this important Bill will help to make their lives easier and better. As the impact assessment points out, livestock worrying has negative economic and animal welfare implications, and is a matter of serious concern for farmers such as those in Newcastle-under-Lyme, rural police forces and our rural communities.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow pointed out, concern about the issue is not restricted to rural communities; it extends to inner-city areas, where there is care and compassion for animal welfare and a desire to strengthen it. The Bill is about supporting our farmers, not attacking dog owners. That is important to point out. I do not have a dog, despite my wife desperately wanting one, but the Bill helps our farmers and the dogs that are owned by those we are trying to hold accountable. We need to keep them doing the right thing.

Global Plastics Treaty

Uma Kumaran Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this important debate ahead of the fifth session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee on plastic pollution, which begins next week in Busan, Korea. He mentioned the all-important biodiversity COP in Cali, Colombia. I was proud to be part of the UK’s cross-party official delegation making the case for climate and nature at that important gathering.

I have heard from many constituents in Stratford and Bow who are deeply concerned about the environmental harm caused by plastic waste in our rivers and oceans. They want to see ambitious action here at home as well as on a global scale, and they want the UK to be a global leader. According to the UN Environment Programme, 1 million plastic bottles are purchased every minute, and half of all plastic produced is designed for single-use purposes—it is used once and just thrown away.

We have long known about the harm that plastic pollution causes. Microplastics are prevalent in our natural world, where they damage environmental health and our rivers and canals and impact our oceans’ carbon sequestration. My hon. Friend set out the effects on our bodies: 77% of people have microplastics in their blood, and the most commonly detected plastic is PET, which is used to make single-use plastic bottles.

Why am I, the Member for Stratford and Bow, speaking in this important debate? East London is where Alexander Parkes invented the first thermoplastic in 1877, but nearly 150 years later it is the proud home of innovative work to end the harm caused by single-use plastic. Earlier this month, I visited Notpla, a world-changing start-up based in my constituency. In 2022 it won the Earthshot prize for its work on creating an alternative to plastic made from seaweed and plants. Notpla has already replaced 13 million single-use plastic products with its technology, which biodegrades as fast as orange peel. It is not just changing how we use and dispose of plastic waste, but seeking to end our addiction to single-use plastics altogether. It is just one example of the creativity and ambition that already exists, which is needed to support the Government’s commitment to reduce waste by moving to a circular economy. But we need to go further and faster, and I think that that is something we all agree on in this room.

Alongside such innovation, global interventions and collective effort are needed to control and prevent marine plastic pollution, to safeguard human and ecological health and to defend against biodiversity loss. Next week’s meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating committee is a pivotal moment. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and my constituents in Stratford and Bow in calling on all member states present at Busan to push for legally binding instruments based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastics. This is a huge opportunity for climate and nature leadership on the world stage, and an opportunity to guarantee a safer, cleaner planet for all of us and for future generations.