NEWS AND MEDIA

• Assembly Round Up
• Press Releases
• Assembly Extra
• Media Operational Notices
• Video Archive
• Social Media
• Video Press Releases
• Press Enquiries
• Information for Journalists
• Media Handbook

Comments:

1. I support the proposals for the levy and the plans to implement it. I'm content that it covers all single use bags, not just plastic. If it was to be extended to bin liners and/or nappy bags etc, I think it would be fair to exclude those which are made of natural or recycled materials, which can be hard to source at present.

   08 May 2012 11:41
   by: Chris Campbell
   Permanent link

2. I fully support the levy in terms of hopefully reducing the litter problem created by single use plastic bags, however I suspect the real motive behind the levy is to raise money for the DOE. The proposals have also ignored the results of life-cycle analysis of plastic carrier bags which clearly demonstrate that the conventional HDPE carrier bag has the lowest global warming potential. A cotton bag for life has to be used 130 times before its impact is less and this increases to almost 400 times if the plastic carrier bag is reused three times. Clearly the decision to introduce the levy has not been made on environmental grounds.

   09 May 2012 09:50
   by: Nigel Martin
   Permanent link

3. I support the proposals for the levy on plastic bags only and feel that a 2 pence levy would be enough to charge people in the present economic climate This levy would go some way to reducing the litter problems we have in all areas

   09 May 2012 13:44
   by: Sean McGlinchey
   Permanent link

4. This copy cat model merely allows manufacturers and sellers to carry on regardless as they are encurring no cost. The solution to the environmental problem should be dealt with at the start of the chain, not the end, only this will significantly reduce the environmental impact.Only this will force the bag manufacturers to come up with smarter solutions. This proposal in its current form is about new income generation for a department starved of cash in an economic downturn.

   09 May 2012 16:04
   by: Sean Eccles
   Permanent link

5. The charge should be 10p per bag immediately otherwise people will not take it seriously. There should be a free issue of re-usable shopping bags made from hemp in the first few months

   10 May 2012 13:30
   by: Tom Woolley
   Permanent link

6. I suggest the committee either read or see a synopsis of the very detailed paper prepared by Keep Wales Tidy at http://www.keepwalestidy.org/policy-and-research# which fully supports introduction of the levy. Starting at 10p would make good sense. Applying to all bags (including low cost reusable bags) seems sensible, though experience suggests paper would not be used to substitute plastic.

   10 May 2012 14:16
   by: Ian Humphreys
   Permanent link

7. The levy should start at 10p per bag and then be extended to 20p per bag. The proposed levy (5p per bag) is simply too little to be effective. The levy should apply to all types of single use bag to encourage people to use multiple use bags. The Welsh exceptions could be followed, but no retailers should be exempted.

   10 May 2012 16:07
   by: Peter Christie
   Permanent link

8. To have a meaningful impact the charge should start at 00.10p. The botom line is that NI is in litter terms a mess, and outsiders that come here are very quick to remark on it. The litter collection costs do have to be met by the community, thus the charge could help here, as could a continuind educational drive

   11 May 2012 09:16
   by: david s oldfield
   Permanent link

9. Charge is not relevant in today's economy and is a tax by another name .It should be rejected as it adds burden to traders and their customers alike,making more work for yet more civil servants.It's a short sighted policy

   13 May 2012 21:17
   by: James Good
   Permanent link

10. I support a 10p charge per bag and the income generated ringfenced for sustainable projects.

    14 May 2012 10:00
    by: Nigel Brady
    Permanent link

11. 10p is too small an amount to deter people. It needs to be more like 20p , with stepped programme of incremental increases , at the same time paper and cellulose bags should introduced and encouraged

    14 May 2012 21:12
    by: Marella Fyffe
    Permanent link

12. Given that the levy is going ahead it shold be as high as possible, even 20p. The levy should not apply to materials shuch as paper that biodegrade. Environmental awareness messages should be put on all one use bags like they have on cigarettes, such as 'did you know it costs the tax payer 50p to clear up every bag thrown away' ; 'did you know plastic bags in the enviroment can kill wildlife'; 'Single use bags contribute to over 70% of the litter found in our parks and coutryside' etc etc

    15 May 2012 16:48
    by: Andy Bridge
    Permanent link

13. I agree with the 5p plastic bag levy but consumers need an alternative solution. There are other environmentally friendly options available so the charge should not apply to these items. Recyclable paper bags should be tax free and reusable juco bags which are made of natural materials should also be excluded from the charges as they have multiple uses. I agree that the tax should apply to supermarkets and most large shops but retailers selling one-off luxury items should be exempt from the charges - e.g. if you sell expensive jewellery or designer clothes you should be able to offer a luxury paper carrier bag to the customer for free instead of asking them for 5p on top of their purchase.

    16 May 2012 13:09
    by: Carla
    Permanent link

14. It woul appear to me that the DoE is trying to offset it's own budget reductions by imposing ridiculous levies on the public, who are already suffering greatly from the cuts imposed. Better education and more structured public advertisements would be a better approach in my opinion.

    17 May 2012 21:52
    by: Paul Moore
    Permanent link

15. The concept of the plastic bag levy is to be supported, as is any measure that reduces our reliance on disposable petro-chemical plastic. Outside of raising tax revenue however, the actual impact on litter & the environment will unfortunately be minimal because plastic bags comprise less than 1% of litter. There WILL be a 80%+ reduction in plastic bag use simply because of the levy cost, but there are other eco-friendly alteratives such as EN13432 compostable bags made from plant matter (starch) to address the bags we NEED to buy when we shop without pre-planning. In the draft legislation, a % of petrochemical plastic bags is tolerated because it raises money, I'd rather be forced to buy a compostable one at the same price. If "The primary objective of the Committee is to ensure that all measures proposed by DOE are focused solely on the objective of reducing environmental impact" then, instead of being singled out as a levy target, compostables could leverage the remaining plastic bags off our shelves. Please visit www.caseforcompostables.com for much more info on this whole topic. Exempting plastic food wrapping makes no sense because food packaging is a more significant & likely cause of visual litter, particulary take away food; we should be legislating that all 'disposable' packaging should have a lifespan to match the organic shelflife of the product that it contains. Why place a 3 day sandwich in a 500 year box? Low purchase cost can no longer be sufficient excuse. We also need to consider that under the EU Landfill directive we need to reduce our proportion of municipal waste going to landfill from 55% to 50% by 2013 and to 35% by 2020. It is a huge, unnecessary and shameful waste. A large proportion of the waste that we will need to divert is organic and has much of its potential 'energy' remaining. Specifically we need to be collecting our valuable food waste & composting it to generate income or converting it into fuel, not burying it, just for ratepayers to pay a tax of £64/tonne. Instead, if we replace our plastic shopping bags with compostable bags, we have a ready supply of EN13432 food waste collection bags for our caddy, tie the top and the whole lot goes straight into the green/brown bin, no smells, no flies, saves the council & the ratepayer money - ask the councils, they do it already! Why are we taxing this environmental alternative that is helping us meet our EU landfill targets?... I support the levy but ask you to please consider starting to tackle the wider packaging context through the leverage potential provided by the legislation and not focus simply on the low hanging revenue fruit. Thank you Paul

    22 May 2012 17:29
    by: Paul Marshall
    Permanent link

16. I have seen the arguments against this levy and I don't agree. Of course, there are the usual suspects who claim it is an example of the government dictating people's lives. This argument does not fly because being "free" does not mean being free to pollute at will. The other argument says that, if people cannot get plastic bags easily, it will reduce impulsive buying. Of course, this argument fails to take into account that money not spent today is still available to be spent tomorrow, so the net result on the economy is zero. At a time when the government is slashing subsidies for renewables in general and making life much more difficult for producers of biogas specifically, we badly need more regulation of these plastic bags, which everyone knows are poison to nature (in some cases, literally).

    26 July 2012 18:56
    by: Martin
    Permanent link

17. I reluctantly accept the need for a 5p single-use carrier bag charge however, I think that increasing the charge to 10p is unfair and unnecessary. This charge may end up punishing people who try to re-use carrier bags but also shop spontaneously and aren't carrying re-usable bags. In particular, the increased charge is effectively a tax on pedestrians and cyclists who don't have the same facility as motorists to carry around multiple carrier bags. I believe the Assembly should re-consider the additional charge and apply fairness across the board as well as some common sense.

    21 August 2012 09:39
    by: Dean Russell
    Permanent link

18. its a blatant money raising scheme,another back door taxation.here in newtownards the roads and pavements outside the council offices are cleaned EVERY single morning(weekends included)..yet i have never seen a cleaner in my own street.this sort of thing is where the back door taxes go.

    12 November 2012 11:10
    by: meonly
    Permanent link

19. More red tape, more cost to business, more enemployment. Why doesn't the assembly do something postive for the economy for a change. we are 4 years in to the worst recession in 80 years and the assemble is doing nothing for businesses. Another back door tax!

    10 December 2012 16:38
    by: A. McConnell
    Permanent link

20. This ill-conceived tax will benefit supermarkets as it will allow them to stop providing free bags thereby increasing their profitibility. But it will be yet another burden on small independent local traders who will have to implement this tax using their scarce time and resources. They will lose customers as people change their shopping habits to spend more in supermarkets where they can load more purchases into one bag (why but a greetings card in a local shop and pay 5p for the little paper bag when you can get the card and other items in the supermarket and still only pay the same 5p). On top of the increase in VAT, the massive increases in parking charges and fines, the big increase in postage charges with more to come and the continual economic decline this tax is a shocking example of irresponsible politics. Alex Attwood is causing massive, unnecessary damage to a retail sector that is in terminal decline and he will learn too late.

    23 January 2013 21:44
    by: Brian Holmes
    Permanent link