Ulster Unionist MLAs have successfully carried an amendment regarding the proposed tax on single use carrier bags.  

South Antrim MLA Danny Kinahan said:  

“We must remember that we have to strike a balance between the environment and taxation. We need to know from the Minister today the size of the tax, exactly how it will be levied and how it will be paid for.

The Ulster Unionist Party tabled the amendment so that we might expand on what is being discussed today. We wanted to clarify the scope and type of bags that will be subject to charging. For example, types of single-use bags are we looking at? There are plastic bags, biodegradable plastic bags, paper bags, hessian bags and cloth bags. If we keep in mind that the intention of the legislation is to limit damage to the environment, we will know that paper bags are worse than plastic bags. They require four times as much energy to produce. Furthermore, deforestation comes with cutting down trees or using pellets. Turning the pellets into paper produces toxic materials.

There is also the fact that paper bags generate 70% more waste and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags. On a smaller point, it takes seven lorries to carry as many paper bags as you can carry in one lorry of plastic bags. You then think of the pollution that goes with all the lorries moving everywhere. So, the Minister should really also target paper bags.

We also need to clarify the exemptions to ensure that environmentally friendly, reusable bags are not subject to the charge. The Ulster Unionist Party wants to make sure that we protect the environment, whilst at the same time ensuring that we do not place unreasonable burdens on the already hard-pressed retail trade.

East Antrim MLA Roy Beggs said:

“It is important that we focus on the environmental aspect of the purpose behind the levy. Originally, there was talk about a green new deal but that has gone by the wayside. No funding from this issue will go towards the green new deal as there is no proposal for a green new deal at present. In any case, I am concerned about the economics and the figures that are coming out. The administrative costs will be £820,000 a year. Surely, we must look at that very carefully to see how we can better manage such a proposal so that we are not simply raising money for more bureaucratic systems.

Also, on the issue of administration, I have a concern about the undue burden that could be placed on smaller corner shops. Big supermarkets can reprogram their tills relatively efficiently and produce an extra button for this. However, what will happen to the small guy who is already working very long hours to survive in business against such large competition? It is very important that we do not introduce a system that results in more corner shops being closed. I suggest, for instance, that we look at introducing some thresholds if we cannot charge at source.”

Tom Elliott said:

“Whilst it is obviously important that we take all reasonable steps to protect the environment, we must also be careful not to impose more un-necessary bureaucracy on business, especially small retail businesses, and ensure that a streamlined system is put in place.”