Wales and Scotland should call England and industry’s bluff: let them lead on a glass-free deposit return scheme that needs to start within 18 months. By David Burrows.
Is it just me, or are business lobby groups enjoying the demise of Scotland’s deposit return scheme (DRS)?
“Albert Einstein allegedly defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. A fresh approach is needed for DRS or we will see the same sorry outcome in 2025,” noted the Scottish Retail Consortium in The Grocer this week.
To keep saying something is rubbish – as the likes of the British Retail Consortium (BRC), the Food and Drink Federation, UKHospitality and others have in recent weeks – but failing to offer any ideas in its place is equally bonkers. We need less of the gnomic comments and to see details of what the ‘fresh’ scheme these groups keep talking about actually looks like. After all, they’ve had long enough to think about it.
From what I can understand, these groups want the following: a DRS that involves all four nations and starts with PET and metal containers; an opt-in for smaller firms; a deposit management organisation that decides, for example, levels of deposit; and for full guidance to be published before the launch. “There’s more detail, but those are the building blocks,” according to BRC.
Most of those seem surmountable, with the exception perhaps of the glass issue. Scotland wanted glass to be included. But England, which doesn’t want glass in its scheme, used the Internal Market Act (IMA) to stop the Scots, which shattered their scheme. Wales also wants glass to be in scope for its DRS but in doing so has this week entered the whirlpool of circular policy politicking that will surely only end in more DRS disappointment.
Some 60 firms, including brewers and hospitality businesses, wrote to Wales’ minister for climate Julie James this week to decry the inclusion of glass bottles which is “now in conflict with all other schemes across the UK”. There were the usual warnings – that such an approach would confuse, increase costs and add carbon emissions (Footprinthas approached British Glass, which coordinated the letter, for more details on that last claim).
James was bullish however. “It’s England that’s the outlier here, not Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and they need to understand that,” she said. In Wales, there is a feeling that the IMA won’t kibosh their DRS. First minister Mark Drakeford told the BBC: “At the moment glass is in our [deposit return] scheme and that’s the way we expect it to stay. […] I would dispute the use of the Internal Market Act for these purposes and if they were to invoke it, there would be very serious questions for the UK Government.”
Almost word for word this is what we heard from ministers in Scotland just a few weeks back. So, why not cut the losses on glass and force the hands of both Westminster and industry?
Here’s an idea
Why don’t politicians in Wales and Scotland send industry off to “lead” this UK-wide scheme, with glass omitted to keep Westminster sweet? Let’s give them, say, six months to draw it all up, three months to consult, dot the I’s and cross the t’s on the legislation in autumn 2024, ready to launch in January 2025 across the UK.
The homework’s all been done up here in Scotland and business groups seem to know exactly what they don’t want, so lob it back in their court. After all, we’re not talking about the theory of relativity here – we’re talking about a relatively simple recycling scheme. So there’s no reason not to have it up and running well before the current earliest planned (and much delayed) date of October 2025.
A pipe dream perhaps. But think of the additional millions of plastic bottles and metal cans that would at least be collected and recycled. That’s snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
There is danger lurking, of course. The food and drink industry isn’t very good at delivering against environmental commitments. Consider Wrap’s plastics pact for example, or the commitments to end deforestation; or promises to source sustainable commodities like palm oil and soya, or indeed carbon reduction and reporting on net-zero. Hence, a ‘told you so’ would be fun for campaigners, but only very briefly as another 18 months lost means another few million cans and bottles languishing in landfills or up in smoke in incinerators rather than replacing virgin materials.
Yet the Scottish Retail Consortium said the DRS debacle is “a wake-up call: industry, not government, must lead the way.” Really? There is little doubt that politics got in the way of the scheme (and continues to do so) but its structure and its running was to be industry-led (through Circularity Scotland Limited, which is now on the brink of collapse following the loss of voluntary industry funding). The scheme failed so industry needs to take some of the blame.
Alas, like politicians, it has no intention of doing so. The consortium wants “a fresh approach” for DRS or we will have “the same sorry outcome in 2025″. Calling industry representatives’ bluff on this is risky but it would force them to show they’re serious about sustainability. I have the feeling that they’re more than happy with a stalemate, but would be delighted if they proved me wrong.
