Steve
Webb: I do not dispute for a second that the Government
are doing lots of other things that do not involve legislation, but
that is not the point. The question is, now that we have a Climate
Change Bill, is the Minister really saying that, of all the things that
require legislation, carrier bags are the most important in terms of
climate
change?
Joan
Ruddock: I am not saying that at all. The Bill itself is
making huge provision for a whole raft of policies and strategies to
tackle climate change; this measure is one small addition. It is there;
it may look odd to the hon. Gentleman to put it in the Bill, but it is
there because it is something that we believe needs to be done and
there is a requirement to legislate. However, it is not a matter of
saying, “This is more important”. There have been many
measures in this Bill that we have all properly debated, which clearly
demonstrate the Government’s commitment most of all to reducing
carbon emissions across the whole of Government and in every aspect of
our society, and also our commitment to adapting to climate
change.
As was
announced in the Budget, we wish to take enabling powers to require
retailers to charge for single-use carrier bags. However, before these
powers are exercised, we first want to give retailers the opportunity
to pursue a sufficient reduction in the number of bags that they
distribute on a voluntary basis. That is my response to the question
put by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. There is in
existence a voluntary agreement, which runs to the end of this year,
but that was about reducing the environmental impact by 25 per cent.
The environmental impact is different from just the numbers of
bags.
Martin
Horwood: Will the Minister expand on the 25 per
cent. figure, because a large part of the impact of plastic bags is not
made on climate change, but in terms of wildlife, litter and causes
close to the heart of the Campaign to Protect Rural England—a
brief name-check—with its “Stop the drop”
campaign? In doing so, will she also pick up on the point made by my
hon. Friend the Member for Northavon, which is that this may not be the
most important consideration in relation to climate
change?
Joan
Ruddock: Let me also name-check CPRE. I supported the
“Stop the drop” campaign and I am working closely with
the CPRE, which is promoting
it. Let
me give the hon. Member for Cheltenham the figures. Plastic bags
comprise between 0.1 per cent. and 1 per cent. of visible litter in the
UK, 2 per cent. of total litter on UK beaches, which is substantial,
and 0.3 per cent. of the domestic waste stream. Yes, those are visible,
cause concern and need dealing with, and how better to deal with them
than to reduce the circulation in the first place? Whatever the
spectrum of reasons, plastic bags have environmental impacts associated
with their disposal and produce emissions and are therefore relevant to
climate change. However, other issues are involved. I do not dispute
what the hon. Gentleman says. But plastic bags are important in respect
of those other areas. We are getting more gain, potentially, than just
simply that relating to climate change—and an important gain it
is, because although plastic bags comprise quite a small percentage in
terms of overall litter, they are so visible. When seeing those bags up
in the trees, in the hedgerows and on the railway tracks, it makes a
big impact and we want to see it ended. [Interruption.] I am
reminded of something that might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. In
our partial impact assessment, single-use carrier bags were responsible
for an estimated 790,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalents each
year. Again, that has an important climate change
impact. Let
me give the Committee an idea of what might be achieved. At least a 70
per cent. reduction in the numbers of single-use bags distributed could
be achieved if a charge were introduced. The Government are prepared to
impose a charge if a similar reduction cannot be achieved through
voluntary action by retailers. The right hon. Member for Suffolk,
Coastal suggested that we were being unfair to retailers and that some
were hurt and disappointed by what they perceive as a change. First,
this is not a change: the proposal to bring about the end of the
single-use carrier bag was included in the waste strategy 2007. I think
he will acknowledge that, whereas public opinion has become vociferous
and concerned about the numbers—they want them done away
with—at the same time a number of other countries have ended the
use of these bags, not least China, where the vast majority of such
bags were being produced. If other countries are doing it and the
public demand is there, it is appropriate for the Government to
respond. We have tried to explain to retailers that the argument has
moved on: it is not a lack of appreciation for what they have achieved.
Of course, we have learned a great deal from what they have achieved
about ways in which we can reduce
packaging. The
Government are prepared to impose a charge if we cannot achieve what we
hope to achieve through voluntary action by retailers. The new clause
would introduce a new schedule conferring powers on the relevant
national authorities—covering England, Wales and Northern
Ireland, but not Scotland, as requested by the respective devolved
Administrations—to make regulations about charges for single-use
carrier bags. The specific powers are contained in the new schedule,
which is split into three parts: powers to require a charge for bags,
powers to create civil sanctions in respect of sellers who breach such
regulations, and procedural matters. This is new material and part 1 of
the new schedule provides powers to make regulations about charging for
the supply of single-use carrier bags. Those regulations will require
sellers of goods to charge for single-use carrier bags supplied either
at the place where they are sold, or for the purpose of delivering
goods. The measures will define “sellers of goods” and a
“single-use carrier bag”, specify the minimum amount that
sellers must charge for each single-use bag, appoint an administrator
to administer the provisions made by the regulations, and confer
appropriate powers and duties on them, including enforcement powers and
duties. It will require records to be kept of the amounts raised by the
charge, and the uses to which proceeds are
put. Obviously,
we will consult formally on those points prior to the introduction of
secondary legislation. The first set of regulations will be subject to
the affirmative resolution procedure. Part 2 of the new schedule
contains provisions about civil sanctions. They follow the model used
in the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill. Of the sanctions in
that Bill, we propose only fixed monetary penalties, variable monetary
penalties and compliance notices. Administrators will be able to choose
which sanction is applied on a case-by-case
basis. We
are not creating any criminal offences and have proposed that any fixed
penalty fines for breaches of the proposed bags regulations be kept to
a maximum of £5,000. There is, however, provision to require
retailers to publicise the fact that they have breached the
regulations. Part 3 of the new schedule provides for the regulations to
be made either by a single national authority, or by two or more
national authorities as joint regulations.
Martin
Horwood: As I understand it, part 3 disapplies the hybrid
procedures that would allow parties named in legislation to make
representations in relation to it. I do not speak on behalf of any
retailers that might be affected, but surely if an individual retailer
is named in legislation, they should have the right to make
representations in the normal way on that kind of legislation or
regulation.
Joan
Ruddock: I confirm that the hybrid procedures to any draft
regulations made under the powers contained in the new schedule will be
disapplied, as we provide for the power to name specific retailers who
will be subject to the charge. The same approach is taken in relation
to the waste reduction scheme provisions, which we discussed with the
hon. Member for Vale of York, and the retailers so named will be able
to make representations.
Amendments
Nos. 86 to 101 are consequential to the new clause and schedule. By
bringing forward the amendments, the Government are responding to
strong public demands for action on single-use carrier bags. Those
enabling powers will provide a powerful lever in our continuing efforts
to phase out single-use carrier bags in favour of longer-lasting, more
sustainable alternatives.
Gregory
Barker: We agree with the Government that single-use
plastic bags are a scourge on the landscape of our country. On a trip
through the countryside, there are few things more infuriating to see
than plastic bags blighting the landscape and stuck in our hedgerows
and trees. The single-use carrier bag has become an icon of our
throwaway society. They cause extensive environmental
damage, endanger our wildlife and pollute our seas and waterways. As the
Minister said, this country uses over 3 billion single-use carrier bags
each
year.
Joan
Ruddock: It is 13 billion.
6.45
pm
Gregory
Barker: I am sorry, 13 billion—that is over 500
bags a year for every household in Britain. Action is needed to reduce
that figure. I must ask the Minister why, as already raised, the
Government feel it necessary to include regulations for what is, in
effect, a litter prevention initiative in a Bill that is about serious
carbon reduction. Much of the evidence shows that there is little if
any carbon reduction benefit—certainly in the grand scheme of
things—from introducing such a charge. In the legislative
precedent, set in the Republic of Ireland, there was never any
suggestion that the policy was related to climate change. It was only
ever mooted as a desirable litter prevention policy—an extremely
successful one it has been
too. Opposition
members of the Committee have made the point at several stages
throughout the debates that the Climate Change Bill is a framework
document, a big-picture piece of ambitious policy making. The Bill is
about the future of our planet and the sustainability of humankind. It
seems inappropriate to us to be introducing a micro-measure, such as
the enabling powers, into the Bill, particularly when those powers will
have no discernable impact on our overall carbon reduction. While we
are certainly in favour of the new clause in principle, we question how
appropriate it is to this particular piece of legislation. Dare I say
it, I cannot help suspecting that a modicum of political posturing from
the Government is involved here. However, I hope that the Minister can
persuade me otherwise, as we are intent on supporting the aspirations
of the new
clause. There
are a few other areas where I would appreciate the Minister’s
clarification about the new schedule. One issue is the
“voluntary agreements”. Hon. Members know that my party
believes in the necessity of keeping regulation to an absolute minimum.
That is why we were pleased to see the Government engage positively
with the retail industry, through WRAP, to agree a voluntary agreement
to cut the environmental impact of single-use carrier bags by 25 per
cent. by the end of 2008. The Prime Minister then said, in a speech
last November,
that “the
Climate Change Bill will legislate so that, if there is not sufficient
progress on a voluntary basis by the end of the
year”— 2008— “the
Government can exercise powers early next year to impose a charge on
these
bags.” Can
the Minister please tell me how the Government define
“sufficient progress”? The reports I have received from
the retail associations involved seem to describe significant progress.
The British Retail Consortium stated
that “provisional
figures released by WRAP in February 2008 showed that retailers gave
out a billion less bags compared to this time last year and had already
reduced the environmental impact of plastic bags by 14 per
cent.” Does
the Minister not consider that to be “sufficient
progress” from the retailers towards meeting the voluntary
commitment? Are there any definitive targets that constitute
that “sufficient progress” that the Prime Minister
mentioned? If the only definitive target is a 15 per cent. reduction,
does that mean that the enabling powers in new schedule 1 will not be
used if the voluntary agreement is met? Some clarification from the
Minister would be welcome, as my party’s belief is that, if
Government enter into an agreement with a business sector and if that
sector is on course to meet the requirements of the agreement, it is
not good for the reputation of government to renege on that agreement
for what could be perceived as reasons of short-term political
grandstanding. Another
issue that greatly concerns us, which the Minister did not really go
into in any detail, is the hypothecation of funds, particularly in the
new schedule. What will happen to the revenues raised by the bag levy?
Should it be introduced, the Prime Minister made it clear in his speech
last November that “any money raised” would go “to
environmental charities”. Yet I do not see any reference to
hypothecation of the bag levy in the Government’s new clauses.
Can the Minister assure me that the Prime Minister’s statement
will be honoured? We have already discussed the public distrust that
exists around green taxes. Sadly, it seems that the levy is slipping in
that direction. We must do all we can, in the interests of encouraging
positive public engagement with environmental issues, so that we do not
give people any grounds for suspicion that the Government are yet again
using a tax, the bag levy, as yet another means of stealth
tax. It
is worth noting that Marks and Spencer, which introduced voluntarily a
5p plastic bag levy in its food stores nationwide in February, is
donating all revenues from that levy to the environmental charity
Groundwork, with which many members of the Committee will be familiar.
It does excellent work. It creates and improves green living spaces
such as parks and gardens in neighbourhoods, especially deprived
neighbourhoods, throughout the United Kingdom. Can the Minister assure
me that the levy will be truly green, not another revenue-raising
initiative—however small—from a cash-strapped
Treasury? Another
issue that concerns me greatly is the ruling out of price absorption.
There is not a stipulation under the new clause that would prevent
large retailers from absorbing the single-use bag levy into their costs
to prevent customers from having to pay it. That would, in effect, make
the levy a new Government tax on retailers with no guaranteed
environmental spend. If retailers could do that, it would give the big
players—especially the larger supermarkets—an unfair
advantage over their smaller and independent competitors, which would
be far less capable financially of absorbing such a new cost. It would
also negate entirely the purpose of the levy, which is to encourage
behavioural change in the buying public. Can the Minister please
clarify that it will not be possible for retailers, large or small, to
absorb the cost of that
levy? I
return to paper bag exemption. The Government have considered whether
the levy should apply to paper bags as well as to plastic. As we are
discussing a litter prevention policy not a carbon policy, is it not
the case that paper bags biodegrade and do not pollute as plastic bags
do? It is interesting to note that the levy on plastic bags in Ireland
did not result in a rush to use paper. Instead, people have moved to
reusable cloth bags. I should like to hear the Minister’s views
on whether
there is a necessity for exempting paper bags on the grounds that they
provide a service without the environmental externality of plastic.
With those concerns in mind, we are inclined to support the new clause
and hope that we can halt the appalling sight of plastic bags littering
our cities, towns and countryside, but we await with interest her
response to our very real
worries. | 
