Scottish Government

CHAPTER 8: PLASTIC BAGS

A Member's Bill seeking to impose a levy on plastic bags has been introduced and considered by the Environment and Rural Development Committee of the Scottish Parliament. The Committee asked that the Minister report back by the end of August 2006 and findings from this consultation will inform that report.

Over half (86) of all responses received dealt solely with the issue of plastic bags; these responses only provided answers to the questions which deal with this issue (questions 19 and/or 20). A standard letter was produced as part of a coordinated campaign from industry and this was submitted by 37 respondents. Additional letters contained standard paragraphs or quotes. Some respondents had already made a submission or given evidence to the Environment and Rural Development Committee and some of these were appended to responses.

8.1 PLASTIC BAGS

The consultation document listed 6 options in relation to plastic bags. And asked "Which of the above options would consultees prefer in relation to the use of plastic bags?"

The options were:

Option 1: to take no action specifically on plastic bags.
Option 2: to promote voluntary measures by retailers and other bodies handing out plastic bags.
Option 3: to introduce a levy on plastic bags, as proposed in Mr. Pringle's Bill.
Option 4: to introduce a levy 'upstream' (on suppliers of bags) .
Option 5: to extend the levy to paper bags as well as plastic bags.
Option 6: to ban the supply of plastic bags to consumers altogether.

This question attracted the largest response of any question in the consultation with 149 respondents commenting.

As seen in table 8.1, over half (89) of all respondents felt that no action should be taken. This figure includes 78 of those responding solely to the plastic bag questions and 11 other respondents. Twelve respondents from the packaging sub-group and 61 individuals felt no action should be taken. Some respondents did not state a preference.

There was support from 24 respondents for Option 2 (to promote voluntary measures by retailers and other bodies handing out plastic bags) while preferences for this came from most of the different groups of respondent, the highest level of support for this option came from local authorities.

The 23 respondents supportive of a levy as proposed in Mr Pringle's Bill included the respondent from the consumer sub-group who commented "Charging consumers for their use of plastic bags can be an important element in awareness raising of environmental issues and a potential catalyst for wider behaviour change". Six respondents commented that some retailers already make a charge or do not provide plastic bags.

Table 8.1
Preference for options given at question 19

A key theme, in 93 responses, was that plastic bags are widely reused in households. By banning or charging for them, waste from other sources such as bin liners would rise, as would methane from paper bags and emissions from lorries. One retailer noted,

" We do not believe that a carrier bag levy would be proportionate to the scale of the environmental impact. Carrier bags are already subject to levy's resulting from the Waste Packaging Requirements. However, if the Executive considers the waste created by carrier bags at 0.3% of the municipal total is sufficient to warrant additional action we believe that a blanket carrier bag tax (option 5) would create the best mix of environmental and economic benefits".

Studies have shown that plastic bags make up only 0.3% of the municipal waste stream and 54 respondents commented that plastic bags have very little environmental impact.

Concerns that a levy would penalise poorer households, the elderly or those without access to cars were raised by 14 respondents.

Ten respondents mentioned that local authorities might find collection of the levy difficult and suggested that it be collected at tills. A further 7 respondents voiced concern over the administrative burden and associated costs of implementation should a levy be imposed. Concern that any levy might lead to job losses was also raised by 9 respondents and this included 4 from the packaging sub-group.

Six respondents commented that, as a source of litter, plastic bags are both highly visible and a danger to wildlife.

Suggested exemptions to a levy included compostable bags (2 respondents) and charity shops (1 respondent).

Other comments included:

• More information for consumers to allow them to make an informed choice (4 respondents);
• Comments that the levy had been successful in other countries (3 respondents);
• That any funds raised through a levy be directed to waste prevention projects (2 respondents);
• That the term "plastic bags" needs a clearer definition (2 respondents);
• Any action taken should be at UK level (2 respondents);
• The need for further research (2 respondents);
• That levies in other countries have led to an increase in shoplifting (1 respondent).

At the consultation event, opinion was divided on this subject and amongst the points noted above, the high incidence of re-use, cost implications for charity shops and possible job losses emerged as the main concerns.

At all four focus groups, charging was seen as a positive step that supermarkets could implement to reduce disposable plastic bag use. Other solutions included:

• Provision of biodegradable alternatives such as paper bags
• Greater use of durable bags
• Greater reuse of disposable plastic bags
• Encouragement of plastic bag recycling at supermarkets
• Waste Aware training for supermarket staff.

8.2 PRIORITY

Question 20 asked "What priority do consultees consider the Executive should give to reducing the use of plastic bags in the context of work to promote household waste prevention generally?"

Again, this question attracted a large response; with 112 respondents commenting.

As can be seen in table 8.2, 48 of the consultees responding here favoured a low priority in reducing the use of plastic bags in the context of work to promote household waste prevention generally. A further 42 consultees felt that no priority should be given to reducing the use of plastic bags in the context of work to promote household waste prevention generally.

The majority of the consultees favouring low or no priority were those responding to the plastic bag questions only, while analysis of responses from those who replied to the consultation as a whole shows a different preference with the majority (17) favouring assigning a high priority to this issue.

Table 8.2
Suggested level of priority at question 20 (all assigning priority level)

In addition to the main points already raised at question 19 and which were then reiterated at question 20, action on plastic bags was seen by 26 respondents (including 8 local authorities) as a symbolic step which would serve to raise awareness of wider waste issues.

"Whilst recognising that the levy would only tackle a component of waste arisings we believe that designed and implemented appropriately, with an accompanying education programme, it would be a highly symbolic step in raising awareness about the need for behaviour change and tackling a largely unnecessary product that is symbolic of our throwaway attitude to resource use."
Environment NGO

Twenty-five respondents suggested that there were more important waste management issues that should be tackled and 4 respondents called for the reintroduction of supermarket boxes or more widespread use of the "bag for life" concept as a way to reduce plastic bag usage. One respondent from the manufacturer sub-group commented "It is important that environmental improvement focuses on those areas of greatest risk. For example, plastic materials account for a small percentage of waste arising (3% waste arisings) compared to paper and cardboard products (26% waste arisings). Discriminating against specific packaging formats should not be allowed."

In summary,

• When faced with a variety of options in relation to the use of plastic bags, the majority of consultees felt that no action should be taken. The two other options attracting a level of support were for either promotion of voluntary measures by retailers and other bodies handing out plastic bags or for the introduction of a levy on plastic bags, as proposed by Mr Pringle's Bill. A number of consultees felt that plastic bags are already re-used by many households.

• In considering the priority that the Scottish Executive should give to reducing the use of plastic bags, there was a distinct difference of opinion between those who responded solely to the questions on plastic bags and those who responded to the consultation as a whole. Consultees who dealt only with questions 19 and/or 20 on plastic bags felt that this issue should be given no priority or low priority. Analysis of responses from those responding to the whole consultation show the greatest number considered that this issue should be given high priority. In combining all responses, a small majority are in favour of assigning a low priority.