Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 16, 2021

Official Report 675KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Single Use Carrier Bags Charge (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 [Draft]

The second item on our agenda is to take evidence on the draft Single Use Carrier Bags Charge (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 from the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham, and her officials. I welcome the cabinet secretary; Catriona Graham, circular economy bill manager, Scottish Government; and Gareth Heavisides, circular economy team leader, Scottish Government. Good morning to you all. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.

The purpose of the regulations is quite simple: it is to increase the minimum charge for single-use carrier bags from 5p to 10p. That will reduce further the number of single-use carrier bags that are sold in Scotland, reduce the environmental harms and littering issues associated with them, and encourage consumers to use sustainable alternatives.

There is widespread support for the proposal. In the circular economy bill consultation, respondents were asked whether the single-use carrier bag charge should be increased to a minimum of 10p, and 80 per cent of all respondents said yes.

It had been our intention to lay the regulations in the first half of last year, but the legislative timetable had to be reconsidered in light of the legislative requirements arising from the pandemic. The most recent programme for government included a commitment to introduce legislation in this parliamentary session.

The increase will also keep Scotland in line with the rest of the UK. On 3 February, DEFRA laid regulations to extend the single-use carrier bag charge to all retailers and increase it to 10p with effect from 30 April 2021. We understand that Wales and Northern Ireland are also considering increasing the charge.

I am conscious that the increased charge, if approved by Parliament, will overlap with the temporary exemption from the charge for home deliveries, click and collect and takeaways. The temporary exemption is a Covid-related measure that will expire on 31 May 2021, so it does not contradict our wider commitments to tackle single-use plastics and other items.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. Do members have any questions about the regulations for the cabinet secretary?

I welcome the move, but I have some questions about the regulations. First, will consideration be given to extending the temporary Covid-related exemption measure to September, or is it anticipated that it will run out in May? Secondly, what do you anticipate the impact will be of increasing the charge from 5p to 10p in terms of benefits to climate change reduction, waste, littering and so on? Thirdly, why 10p? Going from 5p to 10p seems to be an obvious jump, but was consideration given to charging 15p or 20p?

I cannot possibly answer the first question. The answer to it depends to an extent on where we are in the context of the pandemic. Currently, the Covid regulation is scheduled to cease on 31 May. I guess that we all hope that that can continue to be the case, but I have no inside knowledge of whether it will. I cannot add any more to that.

On the cost of the charge, we consulted on the 10p cost, which got 80 per cent support from respondents. The higher the charge goes, the more the support might begin to drift. It is also a single coin. Those would all be considerations in the thinking. The introduction of the 5p charge led to a massive reduction in the use of carrier bags, so I guess that we are trying not to take a hammer to crack a nut. At the moment, increasing the charge to 10p seems to be a reasonable and widely accepted move, and it means that we will not get into any unnecessary controversy.

In my opening remarks, I mentioned some of the wider benefits. It is important to flag up research on the environmental benefits. The Marine Conservation Society found that, in the two years following 2016, the number of carrier bags found on Scotland’s beaches dropped by 40 per cent, and there was a further drop of 42 per cent between 2018 and 2019. There is potential evidence of an increase in what are termed “bags for life”; we will consider further research into that.

We know that there are significant benefits. We have seen them already, and I think that we will go on seeing them. It is worth reminding people that the charge applies not just to single-use plastic carrier bags but to single-use bags. It is not simply about plastic. We are trying to encourage good environmental behaviour overall.

I appreciate the cabinet’s secretary’s response regarding plastic use in deliveries. The exemption came into force in April 2020 but expired in October 2020. Can she confirm that there was a gap in the carrier bag charge exemption for grocery collections and takeaways between October and the new regulations coming in on 29 January? If there was, can she give us some assurance that, come 31 May, every consideration will be given to the importance of not having a gap in the protection of people who are vulnerable and at high risk, and rely on deliveries from supermarkets?

You are asking me about a different piece of legislation. I have said that I hope that 31 May holds. I cannot in any way foresee what might or might not be the case when we are in a brand-new session of Parliament. All that I can say is that the intention would be not to allow any gaps, but I am not in a position to make any kind of commitment.

Perhaps Gareth Heavisides can cast his mind back to the gap that Finlay Carson has identified that might have arisen last year.

That is correct, cabinet secretary. The initial exemption regulations ran out on 3 October. At the time, given that we were in a different situation with Covid, it was decided not to extend the regulations. Things were moving back to a more normal footing with deliveries. However, the exemption was brought back in because of the new variants and the increase in the pandemic early in the year.

That is helpful. It was not an accidental gap, if that is what Finlay Carson is concerned about. It was not a situation that had been overlooked; a decision was taken in light of what we understood the pandemic situation to be at the time and the way that it was heading, which, across the UK, of course, turned out not to be as optimistic as it might have been. In a sense, that reinforces my caution about 31 May. As much as we hope that that really will be the end of the necessity for the approach, we have already learned that the virus has surprises in store for us, and I do not want to commit myself to something that cannot possibly be committed to.

That shows that there was a gap. We went back into what was, in effect, a national lockdown on boxing day, but the decision to extend the exemption was not made until the end of January. We saw some of the highest infection rates from the end of December through January, but there was not quick enough action to ensure that carrier bags for delivery services were exempt again. I would not like to see that happen again. I would like to think that the Government could react to growing infections and extend the exemption if that is needed.

That would not have been carelessness; there would have been specific reasons for that. I will need to go back into the progress of that piece of legislation and see whether we can pin down more clarity of understanding about the process. I undertake to let Finlay Carson or, indeed, the whole committee, if it is interested, know what the timescale for that piece of legislation was.

Okay.

Obviously, the levy raises important money for environmental projects and other initiatives. Will the 5p increase deliver more money or less money because there will be less use of plastic bags?

On the exemption, multiple major retailers have not had to pay money during the period of exemption from the 5p levy on the bags, but have they voluntarily offered to make good on those levy payments?

I do not have an answer to that question. Obviously, if anybody wanted to voluntarily put forward sums of money that are equivalent to what they might have had to give, nobody would turn them down. I expect that the situation might vary from organisation to organisation. However, we do not have overall data about that at the moment.

We need to remember that it is a levy because going further than that would have turned it into a tax. That would have involved a reserved power, so we could not do that.

I am sorry, but I think that I have missed a bit of the question. I think that I overlooked something in answering the first part of the question.

You have certainly answered the second part. The first part was about the increase in the levy and the net benefit. [Inaudible.]—buying bags. What will that do? Will that mean that more money or less money will come in?

I cannot model that now, because it will depend on consumer behaviour. An entirely successful scheme would probably result in no money coming in, because people would simply have ceased buying the bags. I hope that Mark Ruskell is not suggesting that, because of that, we should hope that people will continue to buy them. We would take people ceasing to buy them as a massive success.

It is just one of those small ironies that the money that is raised goes towards good causes and, if less money is raised, that pot of money will not be available. However, that was not the point of the levy. The point of the levy was to reduce consumer demand and the resultant harms that come from the excess use of single-use carrier bags. The levy’s success will be a continued reduction in that single use, notwithstanding the reduction in money.

12:15  

I notice from the chat box that Gareth Heavisides would like to come back in.

Oh. What have I said wrong?

You have not said anything wrong, cabinet secretary.

On the point that Mark Ruskell made about continuing donations, we contacted retailers at the time of the initial exemption and asked them to maintain donations if they would. At the end of the day, it is their call—[Inaudible.]

Okay. Nobody else wants to come in, so we will move on to agenda item 3. I invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S5M-23854.

Motion moved,

That the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee recommends that the Single Use Carrier Bags Charge (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 [draft] be approved.—[Roseanna Cunningham]

Motion agreed to.

I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their time this morning.

---

Crofting Community Right to Buy (Procedure, Ballots and Forms) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/27)

Agenda item 4 is consideration of the Crofting Community Right to Buy (Procedure, Ballots and Forms) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021, which is a negative instrument. I believe that Angus MacDonald would like to say something.

Yes. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. In relation to this Scottish statutory instrument, I am obliged to declare that I own properties in a crofting township in the Western Isles, which is on an estate that is subject to a community buy-out attempt, with the likelihood of a hostile buy-out. However, sadly, I derive no income from those properties.

Will members confirm that they do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument? That is confirmed.

In its next meeting, on 23 February, the committee will take evidence on the environmental implications of EU exit from the cabinet secretary, consider petitions within the remit of the committee, and consider a draft of a report on the updated climate change plan.

That concludes the public part of our meeting.

12:18 Meeting continued in private until 12:33.