Draft Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mr George Howarth 

Austin, Ian (Dudley North) (Lab) 

† Fitzpatrick, Jim (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) 

† Gardiner, Barry (Brent North) (Lab) 

Glass, Pat (North West Durham) (Lab) 

† Heald, Sir Oliver (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) 

† Hoban, Mr Mark (Fareham) (Con) 

† McCartney, Jason (Colne Valley) (Con) 

† Mitchell, Austin (Great Grimsby) (Lab) 

† Munt, Tessa (Wells) (LD) 

Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP) 

† Pawsey, Mark (Rugby) (Con) 

† Penrose, John (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)  

† Phillipson, Bridget (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) 

† Rogerson, Dan (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)  

† Smith, Chloe (Norwich North) (Con) 

† Stewart, Bob (Beckenham) (Con) 

† Walker, Mr Robin (Worcester) (Con) 

Winnick, Mr David (Walsall North) (Lab) 

Daniel Whitford, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):

Clark, Katy (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab) 

Swales, Ian (Redcar) (LD) 

Williams, Roger (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD) 

Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee 

Tuesday 10 March 2015  

[Mr George Howarth in the Chair] 

Draft Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015

8.55 am 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson):  I beg to move, 

That the Committee has considered the draft Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Howarth. Schedule 6 to the Climate Change Act 2008 enables Ministers to make an order to bring in charges for single use carrier bags. I will explain the main elements of the draft order, but first I will remind the Committee why the Government are legislating for a modest charge on single use plastic carrier bags. We are committed to reducing the number of such bags in distribution. That will reduce the environmental impacts of the production of these oil-based products, and reduce the impact of plastic bags at the end of their lives, particularly on the visual environment and wildlife when they are littered. Similar charges in other countries have demonstrated how effective such a simple measure can be. Customers are encouraged to reuse their bags rather than incur the charge, and when bags are charged for, we expect the profits to be directed to good causes. 

Too many single use bags are needlessly distributed. Efforts to reduce the numbers of single use plastic bags without resorting to legislation have led to a good deal of success in the past. Voluntary initiatives by retailers resulted in a reduction in the distribution of single use plastic bags by 48% between 2006 and 2009, and that was significant progress, but the number of single use plastic bags given out is again on the rise. In England between 2010 and 2013, there was an increase of 18%, or just over 1 billion bags, and in 2013 alone England’s main supermarket chains issued more than 7 billion single use carrier bags to their customers. Laid out, those bags would go around the M25 more than 20,000 times. 

As we all know, far too many of the bags make their way on to the streets and into the countryside as unsightly litter. They are discarded on to beaches and into the sea, where they can harm wildlife. Plastic bags also have a negative impact on the environment through their production and disposal. The oil used in their creation and the tonnes of plastic that go to landfill are such that we must take action to reduce the use of plastic bags. Where they are used, they should be reused as often as possible and then recycled. 

The Environmental Audit Committee’s report on bags last year was carefully studied by the Government. We might agree to disagree on some details of the scheme, but we are all in agreement that reducing bag use has

real environmental benefits, including lower carbon emissions, more efficient use of valuable resources and less litter. 

Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab):  Since the main purpose is to ban plastic bags for all the reasons given by the Minister, rather than saying, as the explanatory memorandum does, that 

“paper bags are not in scope”, 

would it not be easier to ban plastic bags? Why do we not do that? 

Dan Rogerson:  That is exactly what we are doing. I think he meant to ask why we should not ban single use bags in total, regardless of material. I will come on to the exemption. [ Interruption. ]  

The Chair:  Order. 

Dan Rogerson:  The draft order introduces a requirement to charge for single use plastic bags. The response to the announcement of the charge, which is a proven tool, has been largely positive. The Welsh charge in its first year resulted in a decrease of 76% in the number of single use plastic bags distributed by the seven big supermarkets. We have been able to use the experience from the Welsh charge to help shape our scheme. A similar charge was introduced in Scotland last October. The English charge will commence in October 2015. It will require retailers to charge a minimum of 5p for every new single use plastic carrier bag, the same as in Wales and Scotland. Bags used for deliveries will incur the charge, as well as those used to carry purchases away from a store. 

Small and medium-sized enterprises will be exempt from the charge in England. We recognise that some wanted SMEs included, but we concluded that we need to avoid administrative burdens on start-up and growing businesses in England at a time when we want to support new growth in our economy. It is also worth bearing in mind that the UK retail market is dominated by a comparatively small number of large stores with more than 500 employees, employing 65% of people working in retail and with 69% of all annual turnover of retail businesses. Any retailer who is not covered by the legislation will of course be able to charge for bags voluntarily. 

As in Wales and Scotland, we hope—indeed, we expect—that retailers will give the proceeds of the charge to good causes. The Climate Change Act does not give Government the powers to determine what retailers do with the proceeds of the charge, but we will require retailers to report to Government the number of bags they give out, the amount raised by the charge and what they do with the proceeds. We will then make that information public, and we expect the pressure from customers to ensure that the net proceeds, once reasonable costs have been deducted, go to good causes. Many of the large retailers have already stated that they will be giving the proceeds to charities or community groups and will publish details on their websites. 

It would, of course, be fitting if some environmental causes benefited from the charge in England. In Wales, charities such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Keep Wales Tidy and Save the Children have

benefited from the proceeds of the Welsh charge. Keep Wales Tidy has used the funding to support a routes to school project that aims to address litter problems on school routes by engaging and educating children and their families. It is not only charities that stand to gain from the charge. When littered, carrier bags cost taxpayers in England around £10 million every year in clean-up costs. 

Of course, there will always be a need for some plastic bags. People might forget their reusable bags or require a new bag—for example, to avoid contamination if they are buying raw meat. At the same time, we should aim to reduce the visual impact and harm to wildlife of the bags being littered. 

A bag that biodegrades into harmless products is clearly desirable. That is why we are working with industry and academic experts to review existing standards, and we will report to Parliament before the charge comes into force on 5 October 2015. The report will state whether there appears to be an existing industry standard or standards appropriate for excluding biodegradable bags and, if so, how that exclusion would be implemented. We are keenly aware that the success of a biodegradable bag will also depend on more sophisticated ways of separating plastic waste. We need to ensure that the quality of recycled plastic does not suffer as a result of contamination with biodegradable bags. 

We are focusing the charge on plastic bags as part of a targeted and proportionate approach to the issue. Plastic carrier bags take the longest to degrade in the natural environment, can harm wildlife and are extremely visible when littered in our towns, parks and countryside. Paper bags make up less than 0.1% of the carrier bags distributed in the UK by the seven major supermarkets and they can biodegrade naturally in the open air. Of course, paper bags can still be reused a number of times before being recycled and should never be littered. 

A few specific circumstances are described in the legislation in which bags will not incur the charge. For example: bags used solely to carry uncooked meat, unwrapped food or goods contaminated by soil where there could be food safety issues; bags for prescription medicines, where pharmacists have an obligation to protect the privacy of patients; and reusable bags for life. Purchases made on board planes, boats and in airports will also not incur a charge, as it would not be reasonable to expect people to be carrying reusable bags in those transit places. The charge will be enforced by local authority trading standards officers. It will be light touch, pragmatic and complaints-led, and we are funding training for those officers. 

A full assessment of the costs and benefits has been carried out. The net impact of the scheme over 10 years is calculated to be a positive benefit of more than £780 million. That includes savings from reduced costs associated with littering and CO

2

-equivalent emissions. Currently, the costs of carrier bags are included as hidden costs within retail prices. The charge means that those hidden costs will be removed by retailers, which need to remain competitive, and that the cost to consumers becomes minimal. 

Although consumers might incur an initial cost from purchasing reusable bags, those bags are designed to be reused many times and supermarkets replace them for free. Although single use bags will now cost 5p, anyone who wants to avoid paying the charge will be able to do

so by taking their own reusable bags to the shops, and we would encourage people to do that. We expect an increase in bin bag sales as there was in Wales, because people currently often reuse single use plastic bags to line their bins. However, even with that taken into account, the impact of the charge in Wales has been a dramatic overall reduction in the amount of plastic used. 

We anticipate that the charge will reduce plastic bag distribution by 70% to 80% in supermarkets and by 50% to 60% in England overall. The order includes provisions for a review of the legislation to be carried out within five years of the charge coming into force. At that stage, the reporting requirement will prove essential in assessing the effectiveness of the charge. Any changes to the legislation could also be considered at that time. We are pleased that the European Union has reached agreement on a robust plan for tackling the blight of plastic bag pollution, with each member state doing what works best in its own circumstances. 

In summary, the Government consider the approach set out in the order to provide a fair means of charging that supports the Government’s aims of minimising waste and resource use. I commend the order to the Committee. 

9.4 am 

Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab):  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. As a good Catholic, you will know that there is more rejoicing in the kingdom of heaven over one sinner who repents than the 99 who do not. 

The Chair:  Order. If the hon. Gentleman is going to drag me into this, he should at least get the denomination right. 

Barry Gardiner:  As a good Christian, then. 

Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con):  Does the hon. Gentleman have a thought for atheists this morning? 

Barry Gardiner:  None—absolutely none. 

Last night I was debating with Baroness Parminter our parties’ respective policies and I discovered that the Liberal Democrats have changed their position on single use plastic bags and come over to Labour’s position, not the Government’s position, which the Minister has had to espouse this morning. Is the Minister experiencing some sort of internal conflict, having had to stand before the Committee and espouse the coalition Government’s position, rather than that of his own party? Many of us would say that such conflict may be natural for a Liberal Democrat, because on one doorstep they say one thing and on another they say something else, but they seem to get away with that, so perhaps that is not a problem for the hon. Gentleman. 

The Labour party position is clear: we support the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendation—we always have done—for a simple, universal plastic bag charge that will reduce plastic waste and litter. However, the Government’s policy is an unscientific mess. The proposed exemptions and loopholes could increase environmental damage and harm the recycling industry.

Now that the Liberal Democrats support Labour’s position on a universal charge for plastic bags, it is clear that the Minister does not even support his own policy. 

Plastic litter ruins neighbourhoods and plastic waste is particularly damaging to marine ecosystems. Reducing the use of plastic bags must be part of a coherent waste management strategy, with a focus on preventing plastic from entering the waste stream and reducing litter. Even though the Government have not abandoned the absurd parts of their policy and adopted the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendations for a simple universal charge that would reduce plastic waste and litter, I assure the Minister that the next Labour Government will. 

Labour’s approach is part of a wider resource security strategy, which includes a “Stern review” of resource security to assess current and future risks and the cost of inaction on resource security, and borrowing powers for the green investment bank to leverage the necessary finance from the private markets to build the infrastructure required by a resource management industry, because we cannot expect the state and public money to provide finance for the transition to a resource-efficient economy. 

Let us look at the Environmental Audit Committee’s objections to the policy. It said: 

“The policy around the exemption for biodegradable bags appears rushed and taken before reviewing existing evidence or considering the concerns of all stakeholders. It appears to us that Defra is trying to use innovation to justify a rushed and flawed policy proposal to allow an exemption for”— 

so-called— 

“biodegradable bags.” 

It continued: 

“The Government’s waste management strategy needs to be clear, consistent and easy to understand in order to secure reduced carbon emission, improved rates of recycling and avoid contamination of waste disposal streams. Gains in other areas could be far more important than can be generated by bags alone.” 

The waste management industry and environmental scientists have been clear that the exemption is absurd. The British Plastics Federation said that DEFRA made its decision on the exemption before even consulting manufacturers. The federation is concerned that so-called biodegradable bags might reduce the quality of the recyclate and undermine the quality of the plastic produced. British Polythene Industries opposed the exemption, which it said would increase the use of plastic bags and undermine recycling targets. 

The professor of marine biology who was an advisor to DEFRA told the Select Committee that he was surprised by the proposals to exempt so-called biodegradable bags. He found that about 98% of plastics, including biodegradable plastics, remained in the environment after 40 weeks, in part owing to a lack of light reaching the bags under water. According to the Marine Conservation Society’s beachwatch survey, quantities of litter on UK beaches have more than doubled since 1994, with 2,309 items found per kilometre in 2013. Last year, English beaches had on average 45 bags per kilometre, an increase of just over 20% since 1996. 

It is clear that there are serious objections, in terms of both the benefits to our recycling industry in this country and the infrastructure needed to have a clean source of plastic, Biodegradable plastic may undermine the quality

of the recyclate that is then produced, and that is a serious problem. The Minister needs to address the problems that plastics pose for the marine environment. I wish that, for once, he would agree even with himself, given that his party’s policy is now so clearly in line with that of the next Labour Government. 

9.11 am 

Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con):  I have some serious concerns and want to get them on the record. I do so with the experience of having spent 30 years in the packaging industry before arriving in Parliament. I am the chair of the all-party group on packaging, and I also sit on the Communities and Local Government Committee, which is looking at the problem of litter and its impact on local authorities. In an ideal world, each bag would be used more often and be recycled at the end of its life. The problem for the Minister and the Committee is whether the measures encourage that. 

Litter is often defined as packaging material that happens to be in the wrong place. The order does not address how the packaging material gets to be in the wrong place. As Lord Holmes said in the other place, bags do not get in the wrong place of their own accord. People generate litter. We need to do a great deal more to raise awareness of behaviour and get people to think more carefully about the final disposal of not only plastic bags, but all sorts of other packaging. 

There are measures that can be taken. The Select Committee has already heard about new bin technology that notifies the local authority once a bin is full, so the local authority can then empty the bin—one of the things that contributes to litter is when people go to a bin and find that it is full. We also heard about interesting novel technology—a bin that makes a burping noise once the litter is put in—to encourage children to take a positive and responsible attitude to putting litter in a bin. So things can be done to change attitudes. The Government should consider that and consider what further steps may be taken. 

The draft order shows no regard for what the retailers, the food service industry and manufacturers of packaging have done to reduce the amount of material that ends up in our packaging. The industry has worked hard on lightweighting—for example, the polythene carrier bag now contains 61% less virgin material than would have been the case 10 or so years ago. The classic product that has been lightweighted is the glass Coke bottle, which is now 30% lighter than it was 10 or so years ago. The industry has worked hard to advise consumers on the pack about what they should do with the packaging. I do not see that on plastic carrier bags, but it would go part of the way to ensuring that we achieve higher levels of recycling. There is no regard for some of the work that fast-food operators have done. The Select Committee heard from McDonald’s about the work that it does to keep the area around its stores free from litter. Such measures help. 

Finally, there are the supermarket schemes, the voluntary initiatives, that supermarkets have implemented. Marks and Spencer has voluntarily implemented a charge of a magnitude envisaged in the proposals. Sainsbury’s reward people in a rather different way, by giving them points on a loyalty card. Measures are being implemented that have reduced consumption. The Minister spoke about a

slight increase in recent years, and 7 billion high-density polyethylene carrier bags being distributed currently, but that is down from 13 billion just a matter of years ago. The environmental impact of plastic bags is relatively modest: they make up 0.2% of average household waste and 0.025% of the material found in landfill. Our Select Committee found that chewing gum and what is left after people have smoked their cigarettes has a much more significant impact on the environment in terms of litter 

I am not alone in thinking that in many cases these measures are too complicated. In the first instance, there is a discrimination by material, because of the exclusion for paper. That goes against the fundamental principles of open competition between materials and fair treatment of manufacturers in the sector. It seems to me that the only justification for that given by the Minister is that paper accounts for a relatively small proportion of bags and therefore does not matter. I think that the packaging industry is concerned about the bias against plastic in these regulations. 

Secondly, there is the uncertainty regarding the exemption for biodegradable bags. I welcome the Minister’s remarks but we need some clarity. I agree with the Opposition spokesman that an exemption for biodegradable plastics will be extremely harmful, because to the average consumer there is no difference between a biodegradable plastic bag and a non-biodegradable one. There is real concern that if those biodegradable bags get into the recycling waste stream, they will cause that recycling waste to have to go to landfill rather than to other uses. I understand that just 2% to 5% of biodegradable bags in a mass of HDPE bags will result in the waste having to be discarded. That leads to massive confusion for the consumer. The Environmental Audit Committee said that there should be no such exemptions, and I would like to see real consideration given to that. 

It is important to consider the consequences of these measures. In the first instance, I believe that there will be a switch to paper, for which there is an exemption. To have the same environmental impact as a single use plastic bag, the paper bag needs to be used four times, but we know that paper bags are used less frequently because paper is inherently weaker than plastic. That is why there was a big move to plastic many years ago. I think that some businesses will switch to using paper in order to avoid the charge. 

I was a bit unhappy with Marks and Spencer when I went there the other day to buy two bottles of wine—nice bottles of wine, they were £15 a bottle. That cost me £30 and Marks and Spencer asked me to pay 5p for a bag, so my two bottles of wine cost me £30.05. I thought that Marks and Spencer, receiving such a substantial sum of money—recognising that a proportion of it of course goes to the Exchequer—would have, out of the goodness of its heart, provided me with a bag worth 5p because I had spent £30, but I was told that it was not its policy, so the next time that I am looking to buy two expensive bottles and need a bag, I will probably look to an alternative retailer. That opportunity will not be presented to me if these regulations come into force, because every retailer—unless it is a small retailer—will be obliged to charge 5p. However, retailers can start offering paper bags free, so there will be areas where there will be a switch to paper to make use of the exemption. 

There will also be a switch to more reusable bags, which many people may feel is desirable, but the bag for life needs to be used five times to have the same environmental impact as a plastic carrier bag. A non-woven polypropylene bag needs to be used 14 times and a cotton bag needs to be used 173 times to have the same environmental impact. The question for the Committee is: do we really expect those alternatives to be used so many times? There is also unlikely to be a significant reduction in the amount of material used for the production of bags. 

The Minister has already acknowledged that, when they get home, many people use plastic carrier bags for purposes other than carrying goods from the supermarket. Some 80% of households use plastic carrier bags as bin liners. When the plastic bag charge was introduced in Ireland, there was a massive increase in the purchase of bags for use as bin liners. If we look under the sink, I am pretty certain that most of us will find that that we put rubbish into plastic carrier bags to take out for collection. With fewer plastic carrier bags, we will inevitably end up buying bags for that purpose. 

I congratulate the Government on adopting two positive measures. First, I part company with the Environmental Audit Committee on the exemption for small businesses, which are the lifeblood of many of our communities. In many cases, they are retailers trading in town centres and have been under significant pressure from out-of-town retail and from internet purchasing. Frankly, the last thing they need is an additional item of regulation, so I am pleased to see the exemption for small businesses. 

I am also pleased that the Government have noted the case made by the Foodservice Packaging Association on bags used for wrapped and partially wrapped food, particularly in the food service industry. There is often food residue on the inside of those bags, and if we were to encourage consumers to take a polythene bag into the fast food outlet, there is grave danger of contamination from a previous visit and the food service operator would rightly refuse to use it. That exemption is valuable. 

There are serious concerns about this proposal, and I hope that at this very late stage, particularly with regard to biodegradable bags, the Government will consider some modifications. 

9.22 am 

Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab):  It is a pleasure to see you presiding over our Committee, Mr Howarth. 

I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Rugby, who had five pages of concerns about this statutory instrument and one page of congratulations for the Government. I think he has the balance just about right, which reflects the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North from the Front Bench. I congratulate and compliment the Minister on showing considerable restraint following significant provocation by my hon. Friend, who outlined the inconsistency of the Minister’s personal political position, and on not rising to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Rugby. 

I am grateful for the briefing from Break the Bag Habit, an organisation comprised of a number of environmental charities. I have particular association with two of those charities. I am vice-chair of the

all-party tidy Britain group and was the Minister responsible for Keep Britain Tidy when I was a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I support and promote KBT in all it does. I am a volunteer for Thames21, the river charity that cleans up the Thames, so I have spent many happy hours on the Thames foreshore at Newcastle draw dock on the Isle of Dogs retrieving filthy plastic carrier bags from the mud, silt and muck thrown up by the Thames. For me, therefore, this measure is personal. 

We all know that plastic bags are a blight on all our communities, whether they are urban, rural or coastal. The briefings I have received express some disappointment. Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s final welcome for the exemption for small businesses, the British Retail Consortium, backed by the Association of Convenience Stores and supported by the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, which represent the small businesses to which he referred, do not want an exemption; they want everyone to be encompassed by the legislation. It is a bit disappointing that the Minister and the Government have not taken that view. There is a clear request from those organisations and others that the review should not be in 2020 and that late 2016 might be an appropriate time to reconsider the exemption and other matters. 

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North and those in the other place mentioned, concerns have been expressed about excluding biodegradable bags, the impact on UK jobs, confusion for the public, and the effect on recycling and on the construction industry. There were comments in support from those on the Labour Front Bench and from other distinguished noble Members, such as the Earl of Lindsay. We have heard several references to the Environmental Audit Committee and its concerns about the order. 

My conclusion is that it is good that the Government are taking action, but it is disappointing that the approach seems to be compromised, qualified and far from perfect, when it could have been much more effective. Hopefully the reviews that the Minister mentioned mean that there will be further progress, and that we can address the questions of biodegradable bags and exemptions for small businesses, because it is about time that we came into line with Ireland, Wales and Scotland and actually did something about plastic carrier bags in England. 

9.26 am 

Austin Mitchell:  Mr Howarth, I cannot say how much I have been looking forward to not only serving under your chairmanship on this Committee, but debating this subject, over which excitement has been mounting for weeks. I imagine that there is mounting excitement in Downing street as the Prime Minister waits for the news from his Front-Bench spokesman that with this order, the last landmark on the Government’s legislative trail has been passed. At last, he can pluck up the courage to face the nation in leader debates and tell them, “We have completed the process of baggeration of the British retail sector. The work is done and this great triumph, though gnarled with a little dissent, can now go ahead.” 

The measure has been the subject of major excitement, and from the serried ranks of people whipped in this morning to support it against any opposition that might

arise, I can see that the Government are determined to get it through. I note, however, that it differs from the provisions in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Consequently, we have no Welsh or Scottish Members on the Committee, and only one representative from Northern Ireland, in case they dissent. These are English legislators passing legislation on plastic bags for England—legislation that is different from that in the rest of the country. I do not think the Minister explained satisfactorily why we have to have a different regime in respect of plastic bags. Why can we not go down the same path as Scotland and Wales? 

In welcoming the opportunity to participate in this debate, I have to say that this is a very inadequate piece of legislation. I am almost tempted to vote against it, just to make trouble—not that it would do any good, and I might get glares from the Whip if I did. That is rather an attractive proposition actually, so I would want a better explanation from the Minister than he has given so far. 

Let me say straight away that plastic bags are a great nuisance. They seem to have evolved into street decorations, as they hang from telegraph wires and lamp posts all over the place. They litter my garden—people empty them and chuck them into it—and they litter the River Freshney in Grimsby, these great plastic bags floating down like dead fish. They are a nuisance that we need to deal with wholeheartedly, and not through this nit-picking regulation, which makes qualifications and exceptions and is so confusing—and it will be confusing to implement. Here is a problem, and the Government have chosen a very devious, very dodgy way of dealing with it—not untypically for this Government—and they have produced an unsatisfactory piece of legislation. 

It is interesting that this regulation applies to the major retailers. Small and medium-sized enterprises are exempt on the basis of numbers of employees, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse said, the newsagents and other small retailers want to be included. I have had representations from the voice of local shops, the Association of Convenience Stores. Its briefing on the legislation says: 

“While we welcome the positive intention behind the decision to provide the exemption,” 

that is, for small and medium-sized shops, 

“our view is that it is unnecessary and will only serve to confuse consumers and reduce the impact of the scheme”. 

What is the Minister’s answer to that? The exemption will reduce the scheme’s impact. We will still have plastic bags littering the country. They will be coming from small retailers rather than big ones, so there might be fewer, but why not have a consistent approach and ban the lot if they are that much of a nuisance? The briefing goes on: 

“Based on the support that universal carrier bags levy has received from Welsh, and Scottish retailers, we would support the introduction of a similar scheme in England. Our members who have implemented the charge in the rest of the UK have been largely positive about the scheme”. 

Why, then, is there the exemption? Why make that distinction? 

Secondly, why are we being given confusing information —it seems confusing to me—on what happens to the money? Paragraph 7.14 of the explanatory memorandum says: 

“The Government does not have the legal power to take the proceeds of the charge”— 

it has the legal power to take the proceeds of everything else, it seems to me, just not the proceeds from this charge— 

“(as happens in Northern Ireland) nor to determine where the proceeds of the charge go.” 

The memorandum goes on: 

“There is an expectation”— 

a pious expectation about big organisations such as Tesco, which has performed so well financially and has had its accounts so effectively managed that it lost £250 million from them in a year— 

“that (as in Wales) retailers after deducting reasonable costs will donate the rest to good causes. We are working with retailers on this.” 

As I say, that is a pious hope. I do not know whether it will be realised, but it could be a substitute for other donations that big retailers make to charities in their area. It gives them fairly free scope to use the money. 

Then there is the problem of biodegradable plastic bags, which for some reason are excluded from the exemption. The explanatory memorandum says: 

“When Government announced this policy it included an exemption for genuinely biodegradable plastic bags that meet defined criteria.” 

That has now been given up. Why? Why do we not want the chemicals industry and the retailers to develop biodegradable plastic bags that can be used in place of normal plastic bags? Plastic bags are convenient, I have to say, so why do we not want an alternative developed—why not provide for that? The memorandum goes on to say: 

“there will always be a need for some plastic bags and we want to encourage development of bags that biodegrade, are less harmful to wildlife if littered, and have a low impact when disposed of responsibly. The Government recognises this is a challenge to UK industry.” 

Well, then, what are the Government going to do to push industry to face up to that challenge? Nothing, as far as I can see. 

I have a letter from a leading worldwide bioplastics company called Novamont, which says: 

“First—we are concerned that the Government’s exemption review process has not engaged with manufacturers of compostable bags, and are worried by their level of engagement with the oxo-degradable bag producers”. 

Oxo-degradable bags, which are largely made in China, degrade into pellets that could then be eaten by animals and livestock. The Government have not engaged with manufacturers of compostable bags. Why? This is a method of disposal. The bags can be used for compost in the garden. The Government should have engaged with those manufacturers. It would be helpful if the Government could commit to engaging with chemicals companies, such as BASF and Novamont, and the UK BioIndustry Association as part of this process. 

The letter adds that Novamont’s compostable bags are currently used in more than 600 Co-operative food stores and that Oldham council has shown how they can be used. Why do the Government not review the successful use of those compostable bags—study that to see how it can be successful—and encourage development in that direction? 

That was the second criticism. The third is about the messy list of exemptions. The explanatory memorandum, at paragraph 7.11, gives a long list of exemptions, which I am grateful to see includes fish, because I want fish to sell, and plastic bags might be needed in which to sell it. However, administering regulation with so many exemptions and qualifications will be very confusing. How will we measure the micron thickness, weight and use of plastic bags, as these exemptions require us to do? 

In conclusion, this is messy legislation in which the Government are managing to dodge their real responsibility to ban the use of plastic bags that are not biodegradable and are not compostable. Why not do it simply and ban the lot, instead of having this complicated structure, complicated exemptions and complicated failure to consult the manufacturers of the good alternative? 

9.37 am 

Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab):  I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words. We already have legislation similar to this in Scotland, and it seems to be working reasonably well, in that people seem to be using fewer plastic bags when they go to the shops because they do not want to pay 5p. It seems that there is a reduction in the use of plastic bags, and that people are reusing plastic bags more. 

I wanted to speak today for two reasons. First, I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, which produced a report on this issue and was of the very firm view that biodegradable bags should not be excluded from the charge. I also come to this issue as the MP for a constituency that has a company that produces very different forms of plastic bag—very large bags for industrial use, farm use and so on—but has an interest in the plastics industry and has been raising with me its concern about the impact of the exemption of biodegradable bags on the plastics recycling industry. There is huge concern in that sector about the implications of this legislation for the sector and the potential for biodegradable bags to contaminate the recycling of plastics. 

This is a cross-party concern. Members on both sides of the House are aware of these issues and share these concerns. I am disappointed that the concerns expressed both by the Environmental Audit Committee and by individual Members have not been taken into account by the Government in drafting this legislation, so I wanted to put my concerns on the record today. It is clear that if this regulation goes ahead as seems to be intended at the moment, that may undermine the sector that is recycling plastics in this country. I do not think that any of us would want that, so I am grateful for the opportunity to put this on the record. 

9.39 am 

Dan Rogerson:  This has been an ecumenical discussion, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to be part of it. I thank hon. Members for contributing. I hope that crowds outside are waiting, in the way described by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, for someone to come running out with a piece of paper announcing that this measure has been passed. If that is not the case, we will at least have had the benefit of debating it in some detail and of being able to indicate that there is broad cross-party support for taking action to reduce the number of single use carrier bags, which are causing

a litter problem. They are also a poor use of resources, given the materials that go into their manufacture, and we have the potential to do much better. 

The hon. Member for Brent North has debated a number of statutory instruments with me in recent weeks, and it is always a pleasure to face him across a Committee to discuss such issues in detail. I wondered whether he was going to propose an additional faith-based exemption, but that was not quite what he sought to do in his opening remarks. He focused on biodegradability and the potential for an exemption, and I want to reassure him. He is right to raise the issue of the definition of biodegradability and the potential impact of some products, which can do well in some parts of the environment against some measures, but which are less good in others. For example, compostable bags are designed to decompose very effectively in a hot composting environment, but they do not perform well in a marine or riverine environment. However, other products, which might perform better in water, would cause problems in compost. 

We need to make progress. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby suggested that there is an argument for an exemption for biodegradability. We should challenge industry on that, and that is just what the Government have sought to do. He asked how the Government proposed to take the issue forward, and we have worked with the Small Business Research Initiative, as a way to encourage new technologies, innovation and new products. 

It is a question of looking not just at what new and more appropriate biodegradable technologies might be available, but at how we separate materials from the waste stream. I accept the wish to prevent any potential contamination of the good recycling that is going on. The Government have taken forward regulations for materials recovery facilities to improve the quality of recyclate coming from them and make it more appropriate for reprocessors. We have worked closely with the reprocessing industry and the waste and resource industry on that. We are therefore committed to driving up the quality of recyclate. 

Part of that exercise is about looking at technologies that could effectively separate products out of the waste stream. We have not set out such technologies in the statutory instrument, because I am not aware that such a technology currently exists. However, for all the reasons the hon. Member for Great Grimsby set out, it is right that we challenge great British innovators to come up with a product that means that, where people opt to use single use carrier bags—perhaps for expensive wine, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby seems to have a penchant, or for mid-range wine, wherever members of the Committee would set the benchmark—they will not linger in the environment in the same way and not cause all the problems we have discussed. 

Mark Pawsey:  Is the Minister saying that the technology he seeks would distinguish between a biodegradable and a non-biodegradable bag in the waste stream? The technology therefore has nothing to do with the manufacture of the bag—it is about the sorting-out process during waste recovery. 

Dan Rogerson:  If I was not clear, I apologise. It is both. We are looking for technology that would allow bags to biodegrade in all environments and reassure us that bags will not contaminate the waste stream. 

Barry Gardiner:  The hon. Member for Rugby makes a serious point. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the criteria will not be followed up on or specified until there is clarity both on the biodegradability of a plastic bag—one that genuinely biodegrades in such a way that it does not provide any contamination to the marine or any other environment, and is not likely to do damage to wildlife through ingestion—and, because he separated the two, on there being a way to ensure that none of the biodegradable plastics are able to get into the stream of recyclate to contaminate the recycled plastic? 

Dan Rogerson:  The process we are setting out is to look into standards and it will report in October, before the charge comes into effect. To reassure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, who is particularly keen that all sectors are involved, while it would not be proper for Government to pick out individual companies and to say, “We’ll go and have a meeting with that particular company to hear if their product is the answer”, we have sought advice from the trade associations, which are part of the process to define the biodegradability standard, on compostable, oxo-degradable and all the different technologies. All the representative bodies of the technologies can be part of that process. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby set out the advances that the packaging industry has made in reducing the weight and other negative impacts of their products. As he knows, I am a supporter of what the packaging industry has done, of its effectiveness in innovation and of the employment opportunities it offers, but it is also right that we seek the sort of relationship in which we can challenge each other to do better all the time. 

My hon. Friend is a member of the Communities and Local Government Committee and it was a pleasure—as it is for any Minister, as he can probably imagine—to give evidence to the Committee on the question of litter. I pay tribute to the Committee for all its work on looking at the full picture of what might be done, so that we can improve how we work effectively at community level to change behaviour and to tackle the litter problem, which all constituency MPs know is an issue raised with us endlessly by constituents who want a better quality of local environment. 

Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con):  North Hertfordshire district council in my constituency spends £125,000 twice a year clearing the A505. It is hoped that the draft order will lead to fewer plastic bags and we will see an improvement. Will it be possible to divert some of the 5p money to local councils so that they can do an extra clean-up? Personally, I think that if less litter was out there, people would be less likely to throw it out of the car. 

Dan Rogerson:  I take the point made by my hon. and learned Friend, which is that if an environment has already degraded, people value it slightly less and are

perhaps less inclined to take better care of it. The money arising from the charge will be available for good causes in local areas and nationally, so supermarkets could do what he suggests. 

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby was keen for us to introduce the same scheme for England as they have in Wales and Scotland. He will be delighted to know that the provision encouraging retailers to give the money to good causes has been successful in Wales, so we are adopting exactly the same process in England, rather than seeking new primary legislation, which would take longer. We have that good model in Wales, where the money has gone to good causes, so we are doing the same thing. Local groups and organisations involved in clearing up the local environment and local spaces will be able to talk to retailers about getting some of the money to do so. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby also set out the case for how people have reused single use carrier bags for lining bins and so on. That has been taken into account. In Wales, the sales and use of bin liners rose, but the figures suggest that that was comparable to about 4.8% of the reduction in single use carrier bags—there was an increase, but it was much less than the beneficial reduction overall in the carrier bags. 

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse set out how important it is that we all engage with the issues. I pay tribute to him for his work for Keep Britain Tidy,

which is a fantastic organisation, and in his local area. It was my privilege to attend the Keep Britain Tidy awards—the diamond jubilee awards—following in his footsteps as Minister. Keep Britain Tidy has done great things and it was also good to hear what the local authorities and their local partners are doing to tackle these issues on the ground. 

I have set out why I believe that the measure will represent a big improvement in environmental quality and will achieve the objectives that we set out. I accept that right hon. and hon. Members are concerned that we keep the process under review. That is why, as with much legislation, there will be a review in which we can look at some of the exemptions. If there is any evidence that they are not performing as anticipated, they can be changed at a later date. 

I thank the Committee and you, Mr Howarth, for the opportunity to set out why the Government are taking this step. I commend the draft order to the Committee. 

Question put and agreed to.  

Resolved,  

That the Committee has considered the draft Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015. 

9.51 am 

Committee rose.