UNCERTAINTY continues to surround Scotland’s Deposit Return Scheme, amid reports of a move by Westminster to bring Scotland’s version of the scheme into much closer alignment with its own.
The scheme, which was originally due to launch this August, has already been officially delayed until March 2024. However, there are ongoing issues around the UK Internal Market Act.
In order for the Scottish scheme to progress, the UK Government has to grant an exemption to that Act, with the scheme unlikely to progress if an exemption isn’t granted.
Today (Friday), the BBC reported that the UK Government was considering granting an exemption – but with some major caveats.
BBC Scotland political editor, Glenn Campbell, said that Westminster’s offer of an IMA exemption would be conditional on the Scottish Government excluding glass from its version of the scheme, with a view to the Scottish scheme then becoming a pilot for a UK-wide Deposit Return Scheme.
The UK Government is due to introduce a scheme covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2025, but Scotland had set out to be earlier and, in the view of the Scottish scheme’s architects, more ambitious.
As such, there was no warm Holyrood welcome for the this latest move by the UK Government, which SNP politicians identified as UK ‘interference’ in a fully devolved matter.
But as the Westminster conditions are also reportedly aimed at standardising the deposit charge, bar codes and labelling across the UK, there has been a tentative welcome from the Scottish hospitality industry, which noted that these things – along with the exclusion of glass – had been on its wishlist since a DRS was first mooted.
Scottish Licensed Trade Association managing director, Colin Wilkinson, said: “Five years ago, the Scottish hospitality and retail sectors pushed for a UK-wide scheme with glass out of scope – we always said that any DRS should be UK-wide and without glass and include a standardised deposit charge, bar codes and labelling across the UK.”
UKHospitality Scotland Executive Director Leon Thompson commented: “We have maintained throughout this process that a UK-wide scheme is essential to make the Deposit Return Scheme a success, particularly for businesses.
“Reaching this point, however, is once again indicative of the delays and uncertainty that have become synonymous with the Deposit Return Scheme.
“Hospitality businesses have sunk millions into preparing for a scheme and will likely have to spend more once again to meet new requirements. For the sake of businesses, I hope we get a decision and clarity as soon as possible.”
Reacting to reports of the UK move to align Scotland’s DRS with its own, Scottish Deputy First Minister Shona Robison said: “It is an outrage that in an area that is fully devolved that the UK government and the Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack would seek to interfere yet again in a scheme that is wholly devolved for no other reason really than because they can.
But she conceded: “We will look at what comes back from the UK government.”
Earlier this week, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack was accused of lying to a Commons committee over the information provided by the Scottish Government in support of its application for an IMA exemption.
Mr Jack claimed that he had not received “proper grown-up assessments” from the Scottish Government that would allow him to determine whether an exemption would be appropriate for the DRS.
But the Scottish minister responsible for the policy, Green MSP Lorna Slater, insisted that all the information had been provided on time, and added that her version of events was backed up by Mr Jack’s ministerial colleague Michael Gove, who had already written thanking the SNP for the information they had supplied.
Ms Slater said: “We have conducted a full set of impact assessments at the appropriate point in delivery of the scheme. We have supplied all the required information and more to agree an exclusion for the Internal Market Act.
“We have been discussing an exclusion with the UK Government for almost two years, fully following the agreed process.”
