I have written a couple of times about the planned Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) in Scotland, most recently here. I made the point that the Scottish Government had so far failed to apply for an Internal Market Exemption from Westminster, which they would need for the scheme to go ahead. There were serious concerns from industry that applying different rules in Scotland would impose additional costs, erode the single market within the UK and reduce choice for consumers.
The UK government have now given their response, which is not to reject the scheme outright, but to give it conditional approval on the condition that glass is excluded. Predictably, this has met with an angry response, but by removing the element that was most problematical and would cause the most problems for smaller craft producers, it could be seen as doing the Scottish Government a favour by making the scheme more realistically workable, and thus in a sense be a deft piece of politics.
Outright rejection would have been met with fury, although it might have been tempting to allow it to go ahead and let it fall flat on its face. Given the array of problems that have been pointed out, the odds must have been that it would either end up being postponed even further, or if it did go ahead in March next year, have proved disastrous. However, as the UK government are planning a nationwide scheme in 2025 they would not want the whole concept to be tarred with the brush of failure.
This may lead to some substitution of glass bottles for cans, particularly amongst craft beers but, as bottles are more expensive than cans anyway, the effect probably wouldn’t be all that great. This episode also illustrates a potential pitfall with devolution if devolved administrations are given the power to impose internal trade barriers.
It remains to be seen how the Scottish government will respond. Will they just scrap the whole thing in a fit of pique, or let it go ahead on the basis that half a loaf is better than none at all?
The whole concept appeared flawed from the start, unless you have a huge investment in the infrastructure needed to administer the scheme, it probably won't have the impact to get the public on board. Most people would support the recycling, but not if it involves a significant burden when returning empty containers. The most likely outcome would be people drinking slightly less due to the increase in cost, and not claiming the deposit fees due to its impracticality.
ReplyDeleteThe burden isn't that great. Scandinavia seems to manage. I've used the return machines in Finland and Norway and nobody seems to mind.
DeleteThey have been conditioned to use them since the early 50's.
DeleteThe fact that these schemes work in other countries doesn't automatically mean that it will be problem-free in Scotland. All deposit return schemes are not the same. As I mentioned in my previous post, the Scottish Government did not study schemes in any other countries. Plus AIUI other countries don't generally require producer registration, which is one of the biggest issues with the proposed Scottish scheme.
DeleteThis is what I don't understand. Why isn't Scotland just copying a scheme which works well in other countries. When I was in Finland the machines didn't care who made the can. You just lobbed it and as long as it recognised it as a can it gave you the credit. I even chucked in an empty can of coke I have brought from the UK and it was quite happy to take it.
DeleteIn general, the Continental countries that have adopted this didn't previously have an established system of kerbside collection, which means they had much larger potential benefits.
DeleteScotland, what a horrid and disgusting place.
ReplyDeleteIt really isn't. But that's just an opinion.
DeleteI see the Scottish government have now decided to throw their toys out of the pram rather than going with the modified scheme. So craft brewers can breathe a sigh of relief. If Lorna Slater had a shred of honour she would resign, so don't expect that to happen.
ReplyDelete