Scotland’s deposit return scheme won’t go down as the finest chapter in the history of Scottish parliament. Six years ago, then first minister Nicola Sturgeon unilaterally announced DRS to much fanfare in her legislative programme, but with little apparent sense as to what it would mean for consumers or firms tasked with implementing it. The subsequent piece of regulation was poorly conceived, badly drafted, ineffectively amended, and finally abandoned. That is a damning indictment of government’s failure to listen.
Sadly this was predictable. The Scottish Retail Consortium (SRC) warned years ago that a scheme which was rushed and included glass was likely to be immensely costly and complex. Unfairly, it looks like retailers will be left with a bill in the tens of millions, despite having warned the original design was heavily flawed. That must be avoided next time.
All four nations need to find an approach which allows them to produce joined-up, legally competent legislation which reflects both the wishes of the different governments and the reality that consumers operate in a single market across those nations. Far too often governments in Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London have the same objective but approach it in different ways.
There is a pressing need to improve the consultation process. DRS must be the most consulted upon issue the SRC has worked on this decade. Tens of thousands of words, expensive external research, endless meetings with officials and politicians were ignored in favour of a pointless and simplistic binary discourse between an ‘ambitious’ DRS which included glass, and one which did not. It is not good enough for government to simply meet stakeholders – they have to actually listen and take action.
Perhaps the worst example was the timetable for DRS. Ministers endlessly wanted to set an ambitious timetable to deliver the scheme, despite the warnings their schedule was unachievable – most recently by the SRC and our members in March. The irony is, by continually setting deadlines which were missed, ministers ended up making the scheme much harder to deliver, and every missed deadline increased the risk of investment. The whole process was indicative that government was unable to recognise DRS as a complex project.
Despite the errors and mistakes, it is still perfectly possible to deliver a world-class DRS across the UK. It will require humility from all four governments, who need to listen to what industry needs to build the scheme. Following the political shenanigans of the last few weeks, it will probably also require capital, as businesses aren’t going to invest again in a scheme without cast-iron certainty they won’t again be left out of pocket. The timetable needs clear milestones which must be completed before the next stage begins to avoid wasted investment.
The scheme, and similar proposals such as extended producer responsibility, also need to be considered from the perspective of hard-pressed consumers. Any costs incurred by retailers will be passed directly onto customers. With household finances stretched by high inflation, it’s indisputable any policy measures need to be well costed, as efficient as possible, and proportionate to the policy gain.
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.
No comments yet