Scotland forced to delay pioneering plastic recycling scheme until 2025

You’d be forgiven for thinking that British politics couldn’t possibly get any more arcane, bizarre and misguided. But last week, a Scottish recycling scheme became embroiled in ongoing devolutionary tensions as Westminster moved to limit the types of bottles included in the scheme. Moreover, the roll-out of the scheme, originally scheduled for 2024, has been pushed back another year, the Scottish government has announced.  

Truly part of the vanguard of the circular economy in Britain, the Scottish Deposit Return Scheme styled itself on the model of success stories from the continent which apply a small “deposit” to certain drinks containers that can be reclaimed when consumers return their used bottles either to vendors or at public disposal points (sometimes called ‘reverse vending machines’). In Scotland, deposits will be set at 20p per container and will apply to all types of drinks container, including plastic, glass, and metal – well, it would have done so, if it wasn’t for those meddling metropolitan MPs... 

Under the revisions ordered by Westminster, the scheme will now include only polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic, aluminium and steel cans. The explicit purpose of the revision is to harmonise Scotland’s scheme with less ambitious versions planned for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Another revision outlined an as-yet-undefined cap on deposits, and another introduced a flat administration fee for all UK firms requiring the services of the deposit return company - and it’s these latter revisions that have set off alarm-bells for some Scottish Ministers.

Some MSPs worry that cheaper deposits might undermine public enthusiasm in returning and that flat fees could simultaneously burden smaller firms whilst failing to raise the requisite funds for the scheme on the whole. Indeed, it was a Minister for the Scottish Greens, Lorna Slater MSP, that revealed the unexpected delay and claimed in her announcement that these revisions would comprehensively undermine the feasibility of a scheme that has enjoyed unanimous support from all major Holyrood parties for nearly three years. For these reasons, there are MSPs who view these revisions as threats to devolution.  

Frustrated with these developments, Slater announced that the Scottish government would not roll-out their deposit return scheme until England, Wales, and Northern Ireland have introduced their own, all of which are currently pencilled in for October 2025. This response has drawn fervent criticism from environmentalist groups eager to avoid another year of allowing ecologically-hazardous waste to accumulate, exacerbating Scotland’s litter crisis. Among the most vocal critics of the delay is Dr. Kat Jones, the director of Action to Protect Rural Scotland, who described the situation as: “a bleak day for anyone who cares about Scotland’s litter crisis, or indeed the global climate crisis.” But an inside source informed The Guardian of Holyrood’s hope that such a delay will leave the door open for the scheme to be re-instated by a new English government should the Conservatives lose in next year’s general election. 

But this isn’t the first time that this scheme has been delayed – in fact, it’s the fourth. Most recently, it became a point of significant contention during the election of Nicola Sturgeon's successor. The victor, Humza Yousaf, was excoriated for his support of the project by his closest rival, Kate Forbes, over whom he was elected by only a very narrow margin. For the most part, these critics claim to stand in solidarity with businesses, like craft brewers, small shop owners, and soft drinks producers, who are opposed to the scheme on grounds of expense and lack of requisite facilities. Craft brewers, for instance, often use glass bottles, so they’re concerned about the difficulties of storing the masses of returns and all of the fees they’ll be paying to the deposit return company. For craft brewers and other similar companies, then, the removal of glass bottles from inclusion in the scheme has come as welcome news. 

Either way, these disputes over the shape of Scotland's Deposit Return Scheme have undoubtedly re-ignited debates over devolution and the efficacy of the scheme itself. For the moment, it seems, the naysayers have won out, but its far from over, as a change of leadership in Westminster may just twist the fate of the scheme. As it stands, of course, the scheme will still go ahead, even if much delayed and far less ambitious.