Home / Sources / Select Committees / Environmental Audit Committee / Plastic bags inquiry
Select committee inquiry

Plastic bags inquiry

Closed

Environmental Audit Committee · Opened 22 November 2013 · Closed 17 June 2014

7 recommendations · 6 conclusions
Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

What the inquiry looked at

“Letter from Dan Rogerson to Joan Walley MP, dated 12 May 2014 Correspondence from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Water, Forestry, Rural Affairs and Resource Management regarding the delay of the Government Response to the Committee's report on Plastic Bags. The Environmental Audit Committee has now published its report looking at the Government’s proposals for introducing a 5p charge for carrier bags in England. The Committee support the aims of the charge which are to cut waste, litter and carbon emissions, but conclude the approach must be kept simple for the scheme to be effective. Full terms of reference”

The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.

What it found

In the committee's words, from the summary of 11th Report - Plastic bags (Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report) ↗

Over 8 billion plastic carrier bags are used each year in England, far more than necessary.

The Government should follow the approach of the 5p charge for carrier bags in Wales, which has successfully reduced bag use by over 75%. Reducing bag use has significant environmental benefits in terms of lower carbon emissions, resource use and litter.

The charge scheme that the Government is proposing in England, with additional exemptions for small retailers and paper and biodegradable bags, would be too complex, unnecessarily confusing for shoppers, and less effective than the Welsh scheme. The proposed 5p charge should apply to all bag types and all retailers.

We welcome the proposals that the proceeds from the charge, which the Government expects to raise around £70 million, will go to charity. However, Treasury revenue from the VAT on the charge, equal to almost 1p out of every 5p, should also be spent on new environmental projects and on monitoring the impact of the scheme. It should encourage retailers to publicise prominently in store how money received from the bag charge is used.

There is evidence that charging for carrier bags leads to fewer bags being discarded as litter.

The Government should focus on making the scheme simple and coherent with other policies to reinforce other positive environmental behaviours. It should take steps to set a minimum price for ‘bags for life’ at a level which incentivises their reuse.

The largest and simplest environmental gains from carrier bags are from encouraging shoppers to use fewer bags by re-using them. The options for disposal and recycling of bags are complex, with significant risks around contamination, and must be coherent with the Government’s wider approach to reducing and managing waste. The proposed exemption for biodegradable bags risks damaging the UK plastics recycling industry, could undermine the reduction in bag use, and is not necessary. It should not proceed.

What the government said

The government responded on 17 June 2014.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.

The Government sets out its response to the Committee's conclusions, retaining its proposed exemptions for SMEs and paper bags while stating that the biodegradable bag exemption will not come into effect with the 5p charge in October 2015.

  • On the charge level, it states that 5p "has been shown to be highly effective in Wales" and that it will, "as a matter of course, be keeping the policy under review".
  • On paper bags, it says the charge "will focus on plastic bags" as a "targeted, proportionate approach", noting paper bags make up less than 0.1% of carrier bags distributed by the seven major supermarket retailers.
  • On SMEs, it says it "has chosen to exempt" them to reduce the burden on businesses, and "will continue to welcome any further evidence on the costs and benefits of exempting SMEs".
  • On research and reporting, it agrees that research is needed and says it "will require retailers to submit data on single use plastic bag distribution". It declines to direct VAT proceeds to environmental programmes, citing inflexibility in spending decisions.

Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error

How the inquiry ran

Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 22 November 2013 to 12 December 2014.

  1. Oral evidence 2 sessions
  2. Report 6 Feb 2014
  3. Government response 17 Jun 2014
  4. Correspondence 12 Dec 2014

What it recommended 7 recommendations · 6 conclusions

1The Government has multiple aims for the plastic bag charging policy, including reducing emissions, waste,...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Government has multiple aims for the plastic bag charging policy, including reducing emissions, waste, and litter, but has not adequately determined their relative priority. Before proceeding it should have undertaken a structured appraisal of the evidence on the potential environmental gains associated with each objective and the extent to which the charge and type of bag would secure these gains, along with an assessment of their associated risks and wider impacts. It needs to ensure its analysis is robust and accurate.
2Given that the proposed English scheme would have more exemptions that the one in Wales,...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Given that the proposed English scheme would have more exemptions that the one in Wales, it is likely that the reduction in bag use would be lower than the 76% achieved in Wales. Without additional complexity from exemptions for small retailers and for biodegradable bags, it might achieve as large a reduction in bag use and littering.
3The policy around the exemption for biodegradable bags appears rushed and taken before reviewing existing...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The policy around the exemption for biodegradable bags appears rushed and taken before reviewing existing evidence or considering the concerns of all stakeholders.
4It appears to us that Defra is trying to use innovation to justify a rushed...
Concluded (the committee's words)
It appears to us that Defra is trying to use innovation to justify a rushed and flawed policy proposal to allow an exemption for biodegradable bags.
5Defra’s proposed exemption for biodegradable bags is risky and unnecessary.
Concluded (the committee's words)
Defra’s proposed exemption for biodegradable bags is risky and unnecessary. The decision to exempt biodegradable bags was rushed and taken without considering its coherence with wider strategies for reducing and managing waste, and the exemption could also undermine the reduction in bag use from the 5p charge. It is important that the Government gets the proposals for the carrier bag charge right, as it is one of the simplest and most effective ways of reducing resource use and helping people act in a way that has wider environmental benefits. The Government’s waste management strategy needs to be clear, consistent and easy to understand in order to secure reduced carbon emissions, 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.
6Although there is evidence that higher charges can achieve greater impact, a charge set at...
Recommended (the committee's words)
Although there is evidence that higher charges can achieve greater impact, a charge set at 5p has been shown to be highly effective in Wales in substantially reducing use. Evidence from Ireland suggests that increasing the size of the charge, or having a credible threat to do so, is important for sustaining changed behaviours. The Government should implement a 5p charge for all single-use carrier bags, following the example of the scheme in Wales, but should review the level of the charge after two years to assess if an increase is necessary.
7Paper bags can have a greater emissions impact than plastic bags.
Recommended (the committee's words)
Paper bags can have a greater emissions impact than plastic bags. Exempting paper bags from the charge, as the Government proposes, would weaken the message to reuse bags, diminish the impact of the charge and the likely reduction in the number of bags used and associated environmental benefits. The Government should therefore include paper bags in the charge.
8With the introduction of a charging scheme for single-use bags, the Government should be ready...
Recommended (the committee's words)
With the introduction of a charging scheme for single-use bags, the Government should be ready to introduce legislation to ensure that retailers sell ‘bags for life’ at an appropriate higher price than the charge for single-use bags, taking into account their greater emissions impact. The Government should set a minimum price for bags for life at a level which incentivises their reuse; perhaps a minimum of 10p for a thin and 20p for a thick bag for life that could subsequently be replaced for free if it breaks. The Government should ensure any additional proceeds of these charges also go to charity, with retailers allowed to recover the cost of such replacements.
9The Government’s proposed exemption for small retailers is unnecessary, and risks adding undue complexity to...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government’s proposed exemption for small retailers is unnecessary, and risks adding undue complexity to the scheme, reducing its environmental impact and reduction in bag use. There is compelling evidence that small retailers want to be included in the mandatory scheme as a voluntary approach could be counter- productive. The Government should include small retailers in the scheme, but exempt those with 10 employees or fewer from detailed reporting requirements. As in Wales, all shops should be required to publicise in-store the proceeds and where the money raised is spent.
10Whilst we support the use of funds for good causes, such as environmental charities, we...
Recommended (the committee's words)
Whilst we support the use of funds for good causes, such as environmental charities, we are concerned about potential abuse of the scheme. The Government should set clear rules for transparent reporting and for retailers to publicise prominently in store where the funds are going. It should ensure tough sanctions exist to prevent retailers having a conflict of interest about which charities are supported and ideally shoppers should decide which local charity the funds go to, as already happens in some stores. If there is evidence of retailers abusing this approach, the Government should follow the example of the landfill tax and plastic bag tax in the Republic of Ireland by centrally collecting and allocating funds for environmental projects.
11Under current proposals the Treasury intends to take VAT from the proceeds from the bag...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Under current proposals the Treasury intends to take VAT from the proceeds from the bag charge (just under 1p of the 5p), which would otherwise go to charity. The Plastic bags 33 estimated £19 million raised in VAT should be spent on new environmental programmes and to cover the costs of monitoring the effectiveness of the scheme. This would help reinforce the wider environmental objectives of the charge and maintain public support.
12More research is needed into how people respond to the charge including the impact on...
Recommended (the committee's words)
More research is needed into how people respond to the charge including the impact on littering and recycling. The Government should ensure that retailers collect and submit data on bag reuse, and monitor how the charge affects wider behaviours to ensure the scheme has as significant an environmental impact as possible.
13The Government should remove the proposed exemption for biodegradable bags.
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should remove the proposed exemption for biodegradable bags. It presents risks to recyclers and might cause as much harm to the natural environment and wildlife as new or recycled bags.

Evidence

Oral evidence sessions 2

Correspondence 1 letter