Charging for single - use disposable beverage cups: consultation analysis

3. Scope of the charge

This chapter presents the analysis of responses to Q5 to Q8, which explore the scope of the charge and proposed exemptions. The consultation paper outlines three scenarios where the Scottish Government feels it would be appropriate to apply the charge. These are for single-use cups sold in schools, sold from some vending machines and in settings where a reusable cup is not practical – for example, event spaces and festivals where single-use cups are required for safety reasons, settings where it may not be possible to clean a reusable cup, and cross-border transport.

Q5: Do you agree the proposed exemption for single-use cups sold in schools is appropriate?

Audience	Sample size (n=)	% Yes	% No	% Don’t know	% No answer
All respondents	1068	51	40	7	2
All answering	1046	52	41	7	-
Individuals	872	48	45	7	-
Organisations:	174	71	21	8	-
All retail	114	81	15	4	-
- Retail - Vending	73	100	0	0	-
- Retail - Convenience / Hospitality	33	45	52	3	-
Retail - Trade Association	5	40	0	60	-
Retail - Events / Festivals	3	67	0	33	-
Manufacturer / packaging	11	18	45	36	-
Environmental NGO	13	31	46	23	-
Public sector inc. local authority	15	80	20	0	-
Quality / consumer protection	2	50	0	50	-
Wholesaler	4	75	0	25	-
Waste management	2	50	50	0	-
Other	13	62	38	0	-

Among those answering Q5, views on the proposed exemption for single-use cups sold in schools were split. Overall, 52% felt this exemption was appropriate, 41% did not and 7% were unsure. While 48% of individuals felt the exemption was appropriate, support was higher among organisations, with 71% in favour. However, levels of agreement varied considerably by type of organisation. All vending retailers and 80% of public bodies who answered agreed with the proposed exemption; in the latter category, all local authorities who responded were in favour. This compares to 31% of environmental NGOs and 18% of manufacturer / packaging organisations. Opposition was highest among convenience / hospitality retailers at 52%.

Q6: Do you agree the proposed exemption for drinks sold from vending machines is appropriate?

Audience	Sample size (n=)	% Yes	% No	% Don’t know	% No answer
All respondents	1068	46	44	8	2
All answering	1043	47	45	8	-
Individuals	869	43	49	8	-
Organisations:	174	67	25	8	-
All retail	113	79	19	3	-
- Retail - Vending	73	100	0	0	-
- Retail - Convenience / Hospitality	33	39	58	3	-
Retail - Trade Association	4	25	25	50	-
Retail - Events / Festivals	3	67	33	0	-
Manufacturer / packaging	11	36	27	36	-
Environmental NGO	13	0	77	23	-
Public sector inc. local authority	15	73	27	0	-
Quality / consumer protection	3	67	0	33	-
Wholesaler	4	75	0	25	-
Waste management	2	50	0	50	-
Other	13	46	46	8	-

Opinions were also split on the proposed exemption for drinks sold from vending machines. Among all those answering, 47% felt this exemption was appropriate, 45% did not and 8% were unsure. While 43% of individuals were in favour of the exemption, support was higher among organisations with 67% in favour. Again, however, opinions varied by type of organisation. All vending retailers, 75% of wholesalers and 73% of public bodies who answered agreed with the proposed exemption, compared to 36% of manufacturer / packaging organisations and 25% of retail trade associations. Opposition was highest among environmental NGOs, none of whom agreed, 77% disagreed and 23% were unsure.

Q7: Do you agree the proposed exemption for settings where a reusable cup is not practical is appropriate?

Audience	Sample size (n=)	% Yes	% No	% Don’t know	% No answer
All respondents	1068	65	26	7	2
All answering	1046	66	26	7	-
Individuals	872	64	29	7	-
Organisations:	174	78	16	7	-
All retail	112	90	7	3	-
- Retail - Vending	73	100	0	0	-
- Retail - Convenience / Hospitality	32	69	22	9	-
Retail - Trade Association	4	100	0	0	-
Retail - Events / Festivals	3	67	33	0	-
Manufacturer / packaging	11	45	36	18	-
Environmental NGO	13	15	62	23	-
Public sector inc. local authority	15	67	20	13	-
Quality / consumer protection	3	67	0	33	-
Wholesaler	4	75	0	25	-
Waste management	2	100	0	0	-
Other	14	71	29	0	-

When considering the proposed exemption for settings where a reusable cup is not practical, two thirds (66%) of those answering felt this proposal was appropriate, compared to 26% who did not and 7% who were unsure. While two thirds (64%) of individuals were in favour, over three quarters (78%) of organisations felt this exemption is appropriate. There was less variation among organisations regarding this proposed exemption, with two thirds or more of most groups in favour, including 90% of all retailers. Support was lowest among manufacturer / packaging organisations (45%) and environmental NGOs (15%).

Q8: Do you think there should be other exemptions? Please provide as much detail and evidence as you can.

Almost two thirds of respondents commented on exemptions. While there was some support for exemptions recorded in the closed questions, among those who left a comment the most prevalent were themes were:

• That there should be no further exemptions.
• Comments on exemptions in schools.
• That there should be no charge (see the earlier analysis of responses to Q2).

There should be no further exemptions

Comments were left by many respondents indicating there should be no further exemptions. Environmental NGOs were more likely than other types of organisations to raise this theme. Comments varied from a brief ‘no’ to the need to keep exemptions to a minimum, and reasons not to use further exemptions. Most commonly, it was suggested that having no further exemptions could help support environmental benefits and promote cultural and behavioural change. A few noted that single-use cups were a relatively new creation, so it should not be too difficult for people to stop using them. Other reasons given included that having multiple exemptions could be too challenging to implement, cause confusion, risk the charge's aim and message being diluted, and people may try to find loopholes to avoid it.

“There should be as few exemptions as possible from the single-use cup charge. If we want Scotland to have a circular economy and become a zero-waste nation, then we need to consistently encourage, incentivise and disincentivise people to embrace new habits.” – Keep Scotland Beautiful

“Generally, exemptions water down the effectiveness of measures, so should be avoided.” - Think About Plastic = Arran

School exemption

Many commented on the proposed exemption for schools. Although a majority supported this exemption in Q5, including all local authorities, most of the comments on this proposal disagreed that schools should be exempt. The main reason for opposition was the need to educate young people to reduce waste and litter and minimise the use of single-use cups. Others commented that young people might welcome the opportunity to improve the environment, expressed a view that young people are more likely to litter, that they are a ‘captive audience’, as they had no choice about being there, that parity was needed between the private and public sectors and that an exemption could send the wrong message at a time when children should be learning about values and forming positive habits. Scottish Retail Consortium also asked for clarification about whether universities and colleges would be exempt.

“Many young people are already very aware of moving towards a more sustainable way of life and may actively embrace this. An important part of any change is the behavioural change needed by businesses and consumers, and including this in schools seems an ideal move.” - Reloop Platform

Some, including a few local authorities, referred to possible impacts of a charge on children and young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds and how these could be mitigated. Suggestions included distributing free reusable cups to all children or those in receipt of free school meals, extending exemptions to all those on low incomes or to all locations where drinks were provided free of charge. However, mixed views were expressed on whether this should be a consideration; while one felt such a focus could be stigmatising, another felt enough was already being done to support this group. Two local authorities noted that education, support and resources would be required to help young people in general change their behaviours. Three respondents differentiated between primary and secondary schools, suggesting that high schools presented the greatest challenge, leading one to suggest that different regulations were required for these settings.

“The concerns around a “disproportionate effect on some pupils, for example those in receipt of free school meals”, are noted. However, it could be that these can be overcome by providing ways to provide free reusable containers to pupils generally. It would be important to ensure that some groups of pupils are not stigmatised, by making them available to all pupils.” - The City of Edinburgh Council

There should be no exemptions at all

Many held the view that no exemptions should exist. Reasons included that exemptions could undermine the purpose of the charge, create inconsistencies and, therefore, confusion among consumers, or disincentivize the use of reusables. Adopting a no-exemptions approach was considered a way to encourage behavioural change, inspire innovation, and maximise the benefits of the charge.

“The disposable cup is not necessary and is detrimental to our environment. Once people get used to the new regulations, they will learn to remember their own reusable one if they want a cup whilst out and about.” – Individual

Many others believed there should be no exemptions but did so because they felt there should be no charge at all. Their reasons aligned with the themes raised by those who opposed a charge, as outlined in the analysis of Q2.

Exemptions in health and care settings

The need to exempt health or care settings was raised by many. Hospitals were most frequently mentioned, followed by care homes. Reasons for exempting these settings included that people in those settings may be stressed or on low incomes, that additional costs might already be incurred associated with visiting, that attention to hygiene was important or that people might have to visit them at short notice. A few mentioned staff in these settings, as well as members of the public, should also be exempt.

“We acknowledge that there may be some spaces where reusable cups may not be suitable for health and safety reasons, such as in clinical settings.” - Hubbub

“Hospital vending machines, hospitals. People with ill health are disadvantaged enough.” - Perth & Kinross branch of the Green Party

Vending machine exemption

Several respondents from outside the vending retail sector felt that vending machines should not be exempt. Reasons for opposing this included that vending machines create litter, that it could drive an increase in the use of vending machines, that many vending machines could work with reusable cups, and that it could disadvantage small retailers who may have other self-service drinks machines which would still be subject to the charge. Suggested alternatives included that vending machines could be phased out, vending machines could be developed to use reusable cups, the cost could be added to the price of drinks from vending machines, or there could be phased implementation.

“On the exemption for drinks from Vending Machines we would call for a commitment to phase out machines that do not allow for a reusable cup to be used and for no new machines to come onto the market that do not allow for a reusable cup to be used.” - Marine Conservation Society

Conversely, a few respondents left comments supporting an exemption for vending machines, for instance, because they are not currently designed to take reusable cups or for those in unstaffed areas or places where drinks are consumed off-site. In Q2, the vending retail campaign response noted the challenge around ‘free vend’ machines, leading to a call for vended cups to be exempt from the charge.

“In environments where convenience, availability and hygiene are key, then it will be impractical to expect consumers to provide their own re-usable cups in all situations. This applies particularly in vending where 66% of the workplace Hot Beverage machines are on ‘free vend’ to employees/customers (AVA 2023 Census & Market Report). The equipment has no payment system, so there is no actual facility to charge the consumer per cup used. Where there is a charge for a vended beverage, the average retail price across the industry is 47p. The proposed cup charge would have a significant negative impact on machine throughput, profitability and thus viability of the whole industry. The impact in vending and automated retail would be disproportionate. To this end, vended cups must be exempt from any charge.” – Vending retail campaign response.

“Please note while vending technology can dispense coffee into customers’ own cups the size of the drink cannot be adjusted to the size of the cup so if a cup were to be smaller than the delivered amount then it will overfill and possibly hurt consumers while wasting the drink. The proposed charge is wholly disproportionate given the average charge for a vended drink is 47p. The charge will therefore penalise business and industry vending.” Benders Paper Cups

Exemptions at certain public events

Several respondents left comments on whether to exempt certain events. Some highlighted festivals or large sporting events and concerts. Most commonly it was felt that these should not be exempt and that some already operated a reusable cup policy. However, others felt these should be exempt. A few suggested community events should also be exempt.

“Festivals especially should not be exempt. There are plenty of festivals who implement a deposit scheme for every reusable cup you buy from the bar, it's not a new or unrealistic proposition.” – Individual

“Music and sporting events. You would not be allowed to bring your re-usable cup into a football stadium due to the law on items that could become missiles directed at players and other fans.” - Individual

Hygiene issues

The need to ensure hygiene, particularly in health and care settings, was highlighted by some. These respondents felt disposable cups should be available in settings where hygiene was necessary or commented that hygiene could be an issue with reusable cups.

Certain public places should be exempt

Suggestions for a variety of public places to be exempt were made. Some suggested transport locations, such as train stations, service stations, ferries or airports, or while using public transport. Reasons for these varied depending on the location suggested. For instance, difficulties cleaning cups or baggage limitations on long journeys were mentioned. Some felt entertainment venues such as cinemas should be exempt and a few suggested charity premises, public buildings such as museums or courts, or public parks could be exempt.

“Job centres. Citizens advice centres. Centres for refugees or asylum seekers” – Individual

“I would say public owned and funded settings would have to be the only places exempted from the charge, which would only apply to the provision of services to the public.” – Individual

“It would be particularly helpful to small businesses if they were subject to relaxed obligations. This could include exemptions or reimbursement for part of the charge.” - Small Independent Hospitality Business

Businesses could be exempt

A few felt certain businesses could be exempt, with suggestions including those with fewer than 25 employees or less than a set square footage, small independents and coffee shops. A small number noted the increase in drinks delivered by food-to-go retailers and called for drinks prepared for delivery, which for practical reasons cannot be provided in a reusable cup, to be exempt. One organisation noted that if delivered drinks were included in the charge it could have a knock-on negative impact on the restaurants and cafes that prepare the food who may lose custom.

“I think there should be an exemption for small businesses such as local cafes as they typically struggle with rising costs and keeping prices lower than large chains and it would encourage people to support local cafes in the area.” - Individual

Specific groups that could be exempt

Disabled people, vulnerable people such as homeless people, and those in particular age groups including children and older people could be exempt, according to some respondents. Difficulties carrying a reusable cup or being disproportionately affected due to financial challenges were the main reasons given for these groups to be exempt. This is explored more in the analysis of responses to Q15 later in this report.

“Exemptions of the fee for those who are disabled. Many disabled people rely on single-use cups. For example, I use crutches and an assistance dog and cannot carry a backpack easily. I rely on single-use cups as I am unable to bring a reusable one easily. Implementing a fee unfairly discriminates against me trying to access the product for the same cost as an able bodied person who can bring a reusable cup.” – Individual

“Possible exemption for children under 12? If family is out for the day and they have several young kids then the charge can mount up.” - Individual