The government has given an update on the plan to introduce deposit return schemes (DRS) for recyclable containers across the UK.
There have been two consultation on proposals with the aim of achieving interoperable schemes that work across the UK.
“Extensive engagement has been undertaken to explore various proposals and identify compromises,” said Parliamentary under secretary of state Robbie Moore. “Together, we have successfully reached alignment on: joint registration and reporting, labelling, reciprocal returns, deposit level, minimum container size, and low volume sales.
“There is an outstanding issue regarding the scope of materials in DRS. The Department of Agriculture, Environment, and Rural Affairs (DAERA) in Northern Ireland and the UK government agree that polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles, steel and aluminium cans will be included in our DRS, and that glass drink containers will be excluded when the scheme launches. The Scottish government have agreed to commence DRS in Scotland on this same basis to ensure the schemes move forward.
“It remains my view that including glass in any UK DRS will create undue complexity for the drinks industry and it increases storage and handling costs for retailers. Glass containers are heavy and fragile, making them more difficult for consumers to return and receive the deposit they have paid, potentially forcing up the cost of their shopping.
“Moreover, glass is littered less: the Keep Britain Tidy litter composition analysis of 2020 presented that 55% of litter was from PET plastic and metal drinks containers, compared to just 4% from glass drinks containers. We want to work with industry on an ambitious re-use and refill initiative and will provide further detail shortly.”
He added: “The Welsh government are taking a different approach. They intend to include glass when their scheme launches. We will continue our conversations with Welsh government, but if their position does not change, we will reiterate the duty to protect the UK internal market and facilitate free trade within the UK so businesses can continue trading unhindered across the UK and ensure better prices and choice for consumers, particularly in the context of the current cost-of-living pressures.”
Richard Naisby, chair of the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates (SIBA), said: “To make the deposit return scheme work for small independent breweries and consumers, we need one scheme that is introduced with the same materials, the same rules, and on the same day across the UK.
“While much progress has been made across the four nations to align the schemes including a de minimis for low volume products, today’s announcement means that small businesses in Wales will be penalised by the political failure to agree the same materials, with Wales the only nation to include glass.
“This will create barriers for small breweries to trade, increase costs, and reduce the choice and availability of independent beer.”
Emma McClarkin, chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, said: “The beer and pub sector has ambitious net zero targets and our members are committed to a circular economy in relation to packaging and working collaboratively to achieve this in a sustainable manner.
“Therefore, we welcome the clarity provided today, the steps to closer align national schemes and the recognition that October 2025 is now an unrealistic target for DRS implementation across the UK.
“However, continued differences across the UK remains a huge challenge for industry, particularly in terms of glass inclusion, adding in significant additional costs and complexity which inevitably will impact consumers in terms of costs and choice.
“Fully aligned schemes across the UK are vital, as is the need for the UK government and devolved nations to clearly set out the cumulative costs of all the upcoming packaging reforms, and how these will deliver against environmental objectives in the most cost-effective and proportionate manner.
“The cost of doing business for brewers and pubs remain acute and these added regulatory costs must be carefully considered.”
