[Adam.]

Aye, in support of this Bill.

Not only will this will promote the reusing of plastic bags, but the extra revenue generated from those who continue to buy plastic bags is able to be used towards funding the negative environmental impact on society. The Bill only impacts on the polluters.

[paperclip]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
If the goal is to promote the re-use of bags, I'm confused about why the government gets a slice of this money? Why is it that, whenever the government does something around here, it seems to think that it deserves more money from people for doing so? If the idea, here, is to make it expensive for consumers to keep getting new bags, it doesn't matter where the money ends up going; So why does it, by default, go to the state? It's not their money.

It would be quite abhorrent for a green bill to provide an incentive for companies to encourage customers to use more plastic bags i.e. the profit motive. Hell, we could just see a massive increase in excess packaging to ensure a nice little profit, forget it, im already sick of my packets of crisps being half full.

I wouldn't be against it going to customer nominated charities, however...

[Jarred]

(Original post by stanlas)
There is a practical reason why most of the tax goes to the state, and not the the retailer. If the retailer kept all the money, then they would have an incentive to make people buy as many plastic bags as possible; in other words, that would defy the point of this Bill.


Oops That bit will be changed



65 million is the total population, which means that not everyone will be buying bags; the 10 bags is an average per person figure, which will be higher for consumers. Its not going to raise more revenue; in fact, it will raise less as people will use less disposable bags, hence decreasing tax revenue from this Bill.

And your last paragraph is contradictory... first you complain about poor consumers 'coughing up even more' because of the Bill (of course ignoring the previously raised point that this Bill is nothing compared to the £65 billion VAT reduction).... then you complain that government income will be 'pitifully small.' That doesn't add up: first you complain that the tax is too big, then you complain that it isn't.

Hows the budget coming along by the way?

Sure not everyone will be buying bags but a large chunk of them will be. And I think it's very safe to say that it is an under prediction to assume that it will only average out at 10 per person for the population. Even when taking into account that not everyone buys bags, I'd still expect a much, much higher figure. I rarely go shopping on my own, less than 10 times a year, but I definitely go through more than 30 bags. I can't imagine therefore, how many bags someone like my mother would go through as she hits the shops every day without fail. What I'm saying is that the magnitude of the number of bags shoppers will buy will overpower those who don't buy bags meaning it'll average out way over 10 pp.
For some people, a bag for life would be seen as worth it and they will reduce their usage of disposable bags, but I certainly wouldn't since I don't shop enough. You also have to remember that whilst people will see that it's attacking them, quite a few would probably pay the price each time rather than carry a load of empty bags around as they walk on their way to the shop through town. People are lazy, and people are forgetful, could easily leave them at home. Whilst a lot of people will feel it quite bad, it probably won't shift their attitudes. Hostile moral agenda attacks from government rarely do any good at mobilising public behavior.

Well it's not contradictory to say that it will hit consumers hard but still pull in small revenues. In the whole context of government revenues and government spending, 65 million is chump change, we spend more than that servicing our national debt in one single day. But, that is not to say that it won't be felt by consumers. Size of revenue and pain inflicted are not mutually exclusive.
If the government taxed Freddo chocolates by an extra penny then the revenue brought in would be small but I'd sure as hell feel it, I love those little devils. Adding more cost to everyone's weekly shop will hit some consumers very hard, but it won't translate as largely to the coffers.

If we're gonna try and reduce the use of disposable bags, I'd like to see it done in a less hostile way, something which doesn't attack consumers who are already stretched enough right now.

These measures will cost the consumer little under a pound per weekly shop, for most, that's not a lot of money. But for some that money could really come in handy. That could buy you a bag of Walkers and a Freddo!


Cheers for asking, I'm currently writing up a presentable first draft, already got the ideas which have been discussed internally, I'll write the presentable copy, we'll discuss it internally some more and then we'll present it as soon as we can.

[stanlas]

(Original post by Jarred)
Sure not everyone will be buying bags but a large chunk of them will be. And I think it's very safe to say that it is an under prediction to assume that it will only average out at 10 per person for the population. Even when taking into account that not everyone buys bags, I'd still expect a much, much higher figure. I rarely go shopping on my own, less than 10 times a year, but I definitely go through more than 30 bags. I can't imagine therefore, how many bags someone like my mother would go through as she hits the shops every day without fail. What I'm saying is that the magnitude of the number of bags shoppers will buy will overpower those who don't buy bags meaning it'll average out way over 10 pp.

According to the BBC, the average Briton buys 133 bags per year, which would make it £13.30 per person per year (so significantly more than the 80-120 million euro). However, the Irish version has seen an over 90% reduction in plastic bags used; in Britain, that would mean it would fall to 13.3 bags per person per year as people start using reusable ones instead, which explains the 80-120 million euro figure

For some people, a bag for life would be seen as worth it and they will reduce their usage of disposable bags, but I certainly wouldn't since I don't shop enough. You also have to remember that whilst people will see that it's attacking them, quite a few would probably pay the price each time rather than carry a load of empty bags around as they walk on their way to the shop through town. People are lazy, and people are forgetful, could easily leave them at home. Whilst a lot of people will feel it quite bad, it probably won't shift their attitudes. Hostile moral agenda attacks from government rarely do any good at mobilising public behavior.

We're aware that people are lazy. Which is why the Bill would also ensure that all retailers (with a couple of exceptions) have to provide a reusable alternative. The reason why customers currently don't use reusable ones is that they are often reluctant to go and buy one somewhere; thanks to this Bill, they would be readily available.

Well it's not contradictory to say that it will hit consumers hard but still pull in small revenues. In the whole context of government revenues and government spending, 65 million is chump change, we spend more than that servicing our national debt in one single day. But, that is not to say that it won't be felt by consumers. Size of revenue and pain inflicted are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps not mutually exclusive, but undoubtedly linked. As much as you play it up, the average of about £1 per resident per year (perhaps £2-3 per customer) isn't going to be a huge pain. And nothing when compared to £65 billion VAT cut (about £1000 per person per year).

If we're gonna try and reduce the use of disposable bags, I'd like to see it done in a less hostile way, something which doesn't attack consumers who are already stretched enough right now.

We look forward to your suggestions
Oh and those poor 'stretched' customers.... just had a £65 billion VAT cut. Poor them

[paperclip]

(Original post by Jarred)
Sure not everyone will be buying bags but a large chunk of them will be. And I think it's very safe to say that it is an under prediction to assume that it will only average out at 10 per person for the population.

A meaningless figure unless you qualify it with a time. Ten bags per year isnt too bad. Per shop, you would have to have a car to carry that much. If thats the case then you can easily do what the shoppers at lidl do, and raid the empty boxes. Or just leave a couple of canvas bags in the car, they look pretty these days too, no excuse not to really. Reduce, reuse, recycle.

Even when taking into account that not everyone buys bags, I'd still expect a much, much higher figure. I rarely go shopping on my own, less than 10 times a year, but I definitely go through more than 30 bags. I can't imagine therefore, how many bags someone like my mother would go through as she hits the shops every day without fail. What I'm saying is that the magnitude of the number of bags shoppers will buy will overpower those who don't buy bags meaning it'll average out way over 10 pp.

Such a horrible waste of plastic that this bill seems to want to reduce. You use as many, if not more bags per year then myself, and i go shopping for my household regularly. Actually, i make a point to pop into shops whenever i pass them to raid the reduced aisle.

For some people, a bag for life would be seen as worth it and they will reduce their usage of disposable bags, but I certainly wouldn't since I don't shop enough. You also have to remember that whilst people will see that it's attacking them, quite a few would probably pay the price each time rather than carry a load of empty bags around as they walk on their way to the shop through town. People are lazy, and people are forgetful, could easily leave them at home. Whilst a lot of people will feel it quite bad, it probably won't shift their attitudes. Hostile moral agenda attacks from government rarely do any good at mobilising public behavior.

I disagree, other posters have discussed the success of this policy in other countries, additionally, it can already be seen in practice in a number of supermarkets across the UK, including Marks and Sparks, and it does work. Moreover, it wouldnt be a significant drain on your finances if you do it once in a while, when you forget or when you buy stuff you didnt plan on (although why people cant shove stuff in their uni/work bags is beyond me). This is designed to target individuals who go out just to shop, and can easily take a couple of spare bags with them. People dont spontaneously do a weekly shop, they take time out of their schedules to do so, people have work to be getting on with and they plan ahead for these things so it wont mean going to the shops every other day.

Well it's not contradictory to say that it will hit consumers hard but still pull in small revenues. In the whole context of government revenues and government spending, 65 million is chump change, we spend more than that servicing our national debt in one single day. But, that is not to say that it won't be felt by consumers. Size of revenue and pain inflicted are not mutually exclusive.
If the government taxed Freddo chocolates by an extra penny then the revenue brought in would be small but I'd sure as hell feel it, I love those little devils. Adding more cost to everyone's weekly shop will hit some consumers very hard, but it won't translate as largely to the coffers.

Well, it wont hit most consumers hard. As i said, people plan to do their weekly shop. Remembering to take a plastic bag is in no way an extra burden on them. Moreover, it does make me chuckle that people think of plastic bags as free goods; someone has to pay for them somewhere along the lines. Supermarkets may hide the price in their goods prices, but as a fan of economics i am sure you will understand there are no free goods. If supermarkets decide the profits from their sales outweighs the costs of bags then its their call, but we can still make them cover the cost of the negative externality; pollution:

If we're gonna try and reduce the use of disposable bags, I'd like to see it done in a less hostile way, something which doesn't attack consumers who are already stretched enough right now.

I have already stated why i dont believe this attacks consumers, but please, do give me an example?

These measures will cost the consumer little under a pound per weekly shop, for most, that's not a lot of money. But for some that money could really come in handy. That could buy you a bag of Walkers and a Freddo!

Relative to their goods purchased, to fill ten bags thats nothing. A shop that size would cost around £100, unless you pack your bags horribly inefficiently.

A final note: A bit of common sense from consumers isnt too much to ask. Whilst it may be annoying to carry bags with you constantly, everyone has a backpack, or other bags they can use. People don't spontaneously go out and do a weekly shop, and when people go out they have some idea of their plans for the day. I can understand if you dont wanna take a backpack out with you to a club, but if youre going for an aimless stroll and think to yourself oh, i might pop to the shops later, it isnt too much to ask to have some form of bag on you. Hell, most women already do this.

[Birchington]

(Original post by Student2806)
Everyone opposing this seems to be under the assumption that the public will just start paying for bags every time they go shopping. They wouldn't. They would simply switch to the alternative of reusing bags, or at least anyone with an ounce of common sense would. That's the whole point of this - to get people to be more sustainable and environmentally friendly.

Very well said. I cannot see how people can oppose this.

[Myotherone]

Im in full support of this bill, plastic bags harm wildlife as people throw them away, either in landfill and when people throw them away out of their cars etc

[orange'94]

It is an unnecessary cost for the consumer but we need to change our habits and this is the view of me and the Green party.

[jesusandtequila]

Why not just charge a 9p levy instead of 10p and giving 10% back? Who thought of this mad-cap scheme?

[Ysolt]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Why not just charge a 9p levy instead of 10p and giving 10% back? Who thought of this mad-cap scheme?

Because then the effect on consumer behaviour would be reduced. I believe stanlas thought this up but I disagree with you: it is sensible not mad-cap.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by Ysolt)
Because then the effect on consumer behaviour would be reduced. I believe stanlas thought this up but I disagree with you: it is sensible not mad-cap.

It's exactly the same. There's no minimum pricing in the Bill, just that retailers have to pay 10p to the government for each plastic bag and then they get 10% of it back (i.e. 1p per plastic bag).

Tell me how that is different to retailers having to pay 9p (note 10p-1p=9p) for each plastic bag they distribute.

The retailer makes the decision on whether to pass it onto the consumer but the retailer in both scenarios is facing exactly the same situation, and so will make the same decisions hence why the 10% back thing is just stupid and pointless.

[Ysolt]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
It's exactly the same. There's no minimum pricing in the Bill, just that retailers have to pay 10p to the government for each plastic bag and then they get 10% of it back (i.e. 1p per plastic bag).

Tell me how that is different to retailers having to pay 9p (note 10p-1p=9p) for each plastic bag they distribute.

The retailer makes the decision on whether to pass it onto the consumer but the retailer in both scenarios is facing exactly the same situation, and so will make the same decisions hence why the 10% back thing is just stupid and pointless.

Oh you are right this is a problem...

Maybe the bill should just say that the cost of plastic bags is increased by 10p from their current prices. In that context the 10% return to the retailer would make sense as a little bit of compensation for having to take part in the scheme -- they have to provide reusable bags which are probably more expensive to supply.

[LETSJaM]

nay

<3 x

[stanlas]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Why not just charge a 9p levy instead of 10p and giving 10% back? Who thought of this mad-cap scheme?

Good spot there. The 10% for business thing originated when we were writing about the administrative costs for the state, and it was convenient at the time to add in something similar for company administrative costs. I agree that looking at it now it seems ridiculous, and it has been changed for the second reading.

[TopHat]

Looking forward to the second reading, this is a good bill.

[Metrobeans]

This has gone to a second reading.