Shops' bag levy carries some big problems with it

IN your story "M&S bags some praise from minister", (May 6), Richard Lochhead, the Environment Secretary, conveniently chooses to forget that he himself was part of the previous administration's environmental cross-party committee that unanimously agreed that to ban or tax plastic carrier bags would increase waste in Scotland by some 13,700 tonnes per annum.

Included in that report were the statistics that nearly 70 per cent of plastic carrier bags were re-used for a variety of uses.

In praising M&S for introducing a charge for plastic carrier bags Mr Lochhead fails to realise that M&S as a company stands to benefit to the tune of £6.5 million yet has said it will raise about £1 million for charity, so where does the rest of the money go?

In answers to a recent parliamentary committee Mike Pringle said the reason he withdrew his previous bill in 2006 was because he knew that it was not going to be recommended to parliament and that a voluntary agreement had been reached with supermarkets.

That was utter nonsense for the simple reason that the voluntary agreement hadn't even been considered by politicians until early 2007, furthermore, the agreement that is now in place is quite clear in its objectives, and that it is to reduce the "environmental impact" of ALL types of carrier bags which include the likes of paper, cotton, jute and other non-plastic/higher impact carrier bags.

Finally, customs and excise figures clearly show that polymers of plastic imported into Eire since the introduction of their "plastax" have increased substantially, with sales of black refuse bags and bin liners up in some instances by 400 per cent.

Bill MacDonald, Staunton Rise, Livingston


Governor must act over prison drugs

IF drug use is more common in Saughton than in other prisons, as your article "Numbers caught smuggling drugs into city's prison soars" (News, May 5) suggests, then the most likely cause is the attitude of the prison management. It seems extraordinary to me that the Governor can not effectively control the introduction of illegal drugs into the prison.

G Davies, National Drug Prevention Alliance, Radnor Way, Slough


Getting the wrong ID about databases

WHILE Margaret Smith rightly raises the importance of security measures surrounding the national identity register ("Government can't be trusted with our personal information", News, May 5), she is mistaken to suggest that large databases must somehow be "dangerous". Take the current passport database which contains some 80 million records. The Identity and Passport service, which will administer the identity scheme, has an excellent track record when it comes to data security.

However, what government data losses have done is underscore the need to get the basics right. This is why the level of security for the national identity register will match some military databases. Personal data will be held on three separate and secure systems to greatly reduce the risk of unauthorised disclosures of information being used to damaging effect.

A National Identity Scheme Commissioner will oversee the scheme. He or she will produce annual reports to be put before Parliament on identity card uses and the integrity of the scheme.

No-one ever claimed ID cards are the only answer to terrorism or crime. But criminals and terrorists use multiple identities to hide their activities. ID cards will make it much harder to use false identities by linking a person's unique identity to the national identity register using biometrics such as fingerprints.

Finally, the latest estimate for the cost of the scheme published on Tuesday shows costs over ten years have been reduced by nearly £1 billion to £4.56bn. This is not money that can be "spent on putting more police on our streets". ID cards are like passports – the fees cover the operational costs of producing them. If there is no card, there is no money to spend on anything else.

Meg Hillier MP, Home Office Minister, Marsham Street, London


School must make economic sense

I AGREE with Jean Douglas (Letters, May 3) when she states the council has only set aside £33 million over the next three years to replace all the Wave 3 schools.

However, I'm afraid that Jean provides no costs for a new Portobello High School on Portobello Park. Whereas I used the official independent consultants report: they estimated that a new school on the park would cost the city of Edinburgh £33.5m compared to £47.9m on the existing site. The additional monies are largely attributable to a damaging two or three-year decant affecting thousands of families.

Regarding the other "missing" £15m? Jean goes on to argue "The other £15m capital receipts, from the sale of the existing site, suggests that the property market is buoyant, and that a high reward for this land, in an already built-up area will be achieved. However, this reward will be felt mainly by property developers and mortgage brokers, and not by the existing residents of the area."

Whether or not property developers eventually make a profit, they will pay the city up to £15m for the development site, money that could be used to rebuild two new primary schools elsewhere.

I'm sure the councillors who voted unanimously to build a school on the park took more than costs into account. However, they do have a duty of care to the other citizens of the city. The councillors were faced with the following choice: At a cost of £48m they could shoehorn the biggest school in the city onto the smallest space with another tower block and no outdoor sports facilities, thereby depriving further generations of children of green space. Alternatively for a net £18m they could build a low-level school surrounded by green space and sports facilities.

The wider community wants use of less than ten per cent of one of Portobello's numerous public parks for future generations and it happens to make total economic sense for the rest of the city.

Stephen McIntyre, Portobello High Street, Edinburgh