Gregory
Barker: Will the Minister quantify what the CO 2
reduction would be as a result of that
measure?
Joan
Ruddock: As a result of which
measure?
Gregory
Barker: If the plastic bag reduction target is met, either
by voluntary agreement or, if necessary, by the mandatory mechanism,
what would be the CO 2
impact?
Joan
Ruddock: I gave the Committee that figure earlier. I
cannot calculate the result of a reduction, but I can tell the hon.
Gentleman that our impact assessment found that single-use carrier bags
were responsible for an estimated 790,000 tonnes of CO 2
equivalent each year. The other issue is what happens each year.
Because the bags are thrown away, we have to produce more and more.
That is important, and reducing the number of them will have valuable
and welcome
effects. We
were accused by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle of political
posturing, and other members of the Committee suggested that we were
responding to the agenda of the Daily Mail. Let me reiterate
that the pledge to make single-use carrier bags a thing of the past was
in the waste strategy for 2007. The Prime Minister also made the
announcement last year, so when the Daily Mail set out with its
campaign against what it termed “plastic bags” as opposed
to all bags, it was responding to what the Government had said very
clearly that they planned to do and something that the Prime Minister
had already announced. We very much welcomed the campaign. We always
welcome media support for our initiatives on both climate change and
waste.
David
Maclean: The Minister is responding to the campaign on
plastic bags in the Daily Mail or The Mail on Sunday.
Does the power in the Bill permit us to take action against all the
rubbish CDs and DVDs that we receive from those newspapers,
too?
Joan
Ruddock: I am very, very sympathetic to what the right
hon. Gentleman says. Most of us in the room would probably not have
time to make use of those CDs, even if we had the
inclination.
Mr.
Woolas: They do not even
work.
Joan
Ruddock: My hon. Friend has obviously tried them. Well, I
do not know about that because I have not tried any. There is a
facility within DEFRA for recycling
CDs. In
response to what the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said about
the House authorities, I agree that there is much that they ought to be
doing to improve recycling rates and to reduce waste. I hope that we
can join in a campaign to that
end. 7.30
pm
Miss
McIntosh: Will the Minister give
way?
Joan
Ruddock: I am happy to give way, but I am worried that
members of the Committee will be here literally until midnight if I go
on like this.
Miss
McIntosh: The hon. Lady said that the Government’s
calculations show that they would save 790,000 tonnes of
CO 2.
Joan
Ruddock indicated
dissent.
Miss
McIntosh: The briefing note supplied to the Committee
stated that 790,000 tonnes of CO 2 will be saved on the basis
that the current bags are made entirely of primary plastic with fossil
energy sources. Most plastic bags used by the majority of supermarkets
are now
biodegradable.
Joan
Ruddock: I do not think that the hon. Lady is correct on
that point, but I will have to take advice because I am not certain.
The impact assessment had said that that was the current cost in
CO 2 equivalent of the use of 13 billion bags. If there was a
reduction of 70 per cent. in the number of bags, the actual
carbon reduction would be in the order of 553,000 tonnes. We cannot
dispute that. It is the order of magnitude that we are talking about,
and that is the calculation made in the impact
assessment. The
hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said that 1 billion fewer bags had
been put into circulation by the major retailers that were part of the
voluntary agreement. He is correct. We believe that it is of that
order. However, if the achievement in a year is a reduction of 1
billion—we have 12 billion bags left in circulation—and
that progress is maintained, it will take 12 years to make the bags a
thing of the past.
I want to
emphasise that we have appreciated the commitment made by retailers for
the 25 per cent. reduction in environmental impact. Much has been
learned from that work that is relevant to other forms of
packaging—particularly in the light-weighting with the use of
raw materials, the greater recycling and so on. It has been an
extremely valuable exercise, with the reduction of a billion bags.
However, as I said earlier, times have changed and we now believe that
it is not just about environmental impact of that nature; we have to do
much more. The agreement continues to run until the end of the year,
and if retailers now apply themselves to numbers of bags—as many
of them are—and they are able to achieve the substantial
reductions that we seek, there would be no need to introduce the
secondary legislation, which would take this primary legislation
forward and create the
effect. I
was asked by a number of hon. Members about the “substantial
reduction” that we seek. We are guided by two things The first
is the situation in Ireland, where there was a 90 per cent. reduction
in the number of plastic bags. As I said, there was substitution. There
has not been a complete analysis by the Irish Government so we are not
able to obtain much more detailed information. Nearer to home, the best
example that we have is Marks and Spencer, which now charges 5p a bag
throughout its stores, big and small. It has already achieved a 70 per
cent. reduction. So 70 per cent. seems to be the bottom line. We would
hope for more—we would like to be ambitious—but if we
think of that as a “substantial reduction”, it is clear
that that is going to take us well beyond where the current voluntary
agreement has taken us.
The hon.
Member for Bexhill and Battle said that there was nothing to indicate
the hypothecation of the bag charges and asked what would happen to the
moneys. He cited Marks and Spencer, which has given all the proceeds
from the sale of bags to Groundwork. Obviously, retailers absorb the
cost of the bags that they produce and distribute. Under the
legislation, that would stop. If introduced in secondary legislation,
there would be an absolute obligation on the retailer to charge for
each bag at the point of sale. There is no question of them absorbing
the cost or of the levy. They cannot do that, but must clearly act in
that
way. The
hon. Gentleman asked who was going to benefit and if it was just
another revenue-raising initiative, implying that the Government were
in need of revenue. However, the Government will not touch a single
penny of the moneys raised by the charges on carrier bags. We would
hope that the retailers would not wish to pick up the money that they
raised by selling the bags, although they would clearly be entitled to
do so. We seek to ensure that they do not give away, for free, those
single-use bags. The retailers would have to charge, but,
theoretically, they could keep the money. We, who know those retailers
well and work with them consistently, believe that they are most
likely—for customer satisfaction and dialogue—to want to
see those moneys go to environmental causes. The hon. Member for
Northavon asked why retailers should be able decide on anything at all.
The retailers are now in constant dialogue with their customers about
behaviour change and the environment—a point made by the right
hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. If the measure should come to pass,
it is most likely that they would want to consult their customers about
which environmental charities they would like to support. I would not
be at all surprised if they
did.
Steve
Webb: Is the Minister satisfied that the version of the
scheme that she described—where the companies can keep the
money—is compatible with public assurances given in the past by
senior Ministers about the
scheme?
Joan
Ruddock: I am absolutely satisfied. That is desirable and
is what we think will happen. We have made provisions for separate
accounting. Should the measure go through, retailers will have to
account and keep records on the proceeds of the sale of bags. That is a
means of transparency and will enable customers to see how much revenue
has been raised for the company through the sale of bags. The chances
are that that will benefit environmental charities. The Government do
not need to go further, and obviously we will not legislate to make
that happen.
Mr.
Gummer: Will the Minister take the opportunity of
returning to the Treasury and reminding it that it stole a great deal
of money from the levy on the landfill tax that used to go to charity?
It increased the rate, although there had been no original intention to
do that, and perhaps the Minister could ask whether it would like to do
exactly the same as it did before. That is why people were suspicious
of what was said.
Secondly,
will the Minister guarantee that this tax will not be reclaimed at some
time in the future? I would not expect that from her, but the present
Government did exactly that with the landfill levy, which was
originally designed so that people could avoid the tax if they used
the money directly for environmental purposes. A large number of
environmental organisations lost out significantly when that was
changed. Joan
Ruddock: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly talking about
a tax—monies that would normally be taken in by the Exchequer or
could be excused by it. This is not the same. The Government are not
involved in getting their hands on this money. They do not seek that
and have no reason to want to do so in the future. This is a charge
made by retailers, who will be responsible for accounting for it and
explaining what they have done.
If this
policy is successful—and we would not introduce it unless we had
good grounds for believing that it will be—the moneys will
disappear quickly.
David
Maclean: I do not believe that the Government will get
their hands on the money. I am a cynical old git and believe that
supermarkets and multinationals will keep every penny. I will apologise
to Marks and Spencer tomorrow if it currently ensures that the money
goes to charity. I would like the Government to put all our retailers
under maximum embarrassment and pressure if they do not use the money
for other purposes. I am fed up with going to stay in
hotels—occasionally—and finding notices all over my
towels telling me that 20 billion towels are unnecessarily
washed every day, that the hotel believes in saving the planet and
therefore it will not wash my towels. I always go to the reception and
ask how much I will get off my bill for having to bathe with a dirty
towel and what the hotel is doing with the money that it
saves.
It is all
very well haranguing us, and telling us that the world will be saved by
charging for plastic bags or not washing towels, but what happens to
the money? Is it invested in the environment, the rain forests
perhaps?
Joan
Ruddock: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman must shop
at one or other of the supermarkets. Should this measure come about, I
suggest that he makes immediate representation to see that the moneys
raised go to the rain forests. That would be a great public service,
and I am sure that he will get a sympathetic hearing.
The hon.
Member for Northavon asked me a raft of questions about transparency,
records and what individual companies could do with the money, many of
which I have covered already. He raised the question of his village
shop and that is very important because the Government have no wish to
see the small village shop burdened by new regulation. Of the 13
billion bags in circulation every year, 11 billion are produced by the
major supermarkets. We need to catch the major supermarkets in the
legislation, along with other significant retailers, but we do not wish
to cause problems for the village shop, and the hon. Gentleman may be
reassured about that.
Steve
Webb: I am greatly reassured by
that. I
want to return to where the money goes, and I have the 2008 Budget
speech in front of me. The Chancellor said that legislation could come
into force in 2009 and could lead to a 90 per cent. reduction. He then
said:
“The
money raised should go to environmental
charities.”—[Official Report, 12 March 2008; Vol.
473, c.
296.] Anyone
who listened to that speech will have assumed that that was where the
money would go. How is that consistent with the Minister saying that
companies may do what they like with the
money?
Joan
Ruddock: I think “should” means that it is
an aspiration. If the Chancellor had said “would”, the
matter would be rather different. It is entirely consistent to say that
that is where we think the money should go. The Chancellor was
expressing that
aspiration. The
hon. Gentleman spoke about the profligate used of bags in home
delivery, and we agree with him, which is why we drafted the clauses as
we did. I believe that I have responded to everything that he asked,
but if I have not, he can jump up. Looking at all the
questions I recorded, I believe that I have dealt with
them. The
right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal spoke about bringing together
voluntary and statutory arrangements, how important the process is to
retailers and their customers, and the point of contact. I could not
agree with him more. It is incredibly valuable, and we can all praise
our retailers for the way in which they have engaged and educated their
customers about waste. The fact that they have achieved so much does
not mean that there is not even more to be done. We will continue to
talk to them about changing their customers’ behaviour, and
considering their own behaviour. Food waste has been a prevalent issue
this week, and we need to talk to them about the amount of waste that
is going out of the back of supermarkets, as well as that which is
going into customers’ bags. There is much to be done, but good
work has been done.
The right
hon. Gentleman spoke about plastic bags around newspapers, and I agree
with him. We are in dialogue with the newspaper industry and direct
mail organisations, and there is more work to be
done. The
right hon. Gentleman went on to say that we should consider a reduction
in packaging waste generally. The Committee will have heard my earlier
slip of the tongue when I referred to this as Courtauld, but the
Courtauld agreement covers packaging and packaging waste. Its members,
who cover the vast majority of the grocery chains, have agreed that the
growth in packaging waste will be ended this year. They have committed
themselves to that, and to actual reductions by 2010. I shall be
meeting them in the near future to assess what progress has been made.
We believe that much more must be done. I have increased the recycling
rates this year for packaging waste, and we will continue to keep that
very much in our focus. Little else so annoys the public beyond plastic
bags than packaging in
general. Finally,
the hon. Member for Northavon and the right hon. Member for Suffolk,
Coastal referred to what they believe is the global vision in the Bill,
and I shall respond to their criticism about involving this measure
alongside that huge vision. None of us wants to diminish that vision.
We are deeply proud of the fact that we are the first country in the
world to give ourselves this target for reduction, mitigation and
adaptation, and nothing should take away from that. However, the fact
is that 40 per cent. of our CO 2 emissions come from the
actions of individuals. If we are to persuade the public to work with
us on the great vision and the global
agenda, we must enable them to do what they can most easily do, and we
must respond to what they say to us. They say that they want the
Government to lead and to facilitate measures that can be taken, They
also say that they want rid of single-use bags. It is appropriate for
us to respond to
that. I
hope that I have responded to all the questions that were
raised. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
read a second time, and added to the
Bill.
| 
