Charging for single - use disposable beverage cups: consultation analysis

5. Recording requirements and enforcement

This chapter presents the analysis of responses to Q10 and Q11 which focused on the proposed reporting requirements and enforcement of the single-use cup charge. The consultation paper anticipates businesses levying the charge would keep records of the:

• Number of single-use disposable beverage cups which they have collected a charge for annually.
• Level of charge set by the supplier and paid for those cups.
• Cost of administering the charge.
• Net proceeds raised by the charge.

Q10: (Please only answer this question if you are a supplier of single-use disposable cups) To what extent do you agree with the recording requirements as set out in the consultation paper? Please provide any information in support to your answer to Q10.

Audience	Sample size (n=)	% Strongly agree	% Agree	% Neither	% Disagree	% Strongly disagree	% No answer
All respondents	1068	1	3	2	1	13	80
All answering	217	7	14	9	6	64	-
Individuals	96	10	18	14	7	51	-
Organisations:	121	5	11	6	5	74	-
All retail	97	3	4	5	3	85	-
- Retail - Vending	73	0	0	0	0	100	-
- Retail - Convenience / Hospitality	21	10	14	24	10	43	-
- Retail - Trade Association	1	0	0	0	100	0	-
- Retail - Events / Festivals	2	50	50	0	0	0	-
Manufacturer / packaging	5	0	20	0	40	40	-
Environmental NGO	2	0	50	50	0	0	-
Public sector inc. local authority	7	14	71	0	0	14	-
Quality / consumer protection	1	0	0	100	0	0	-
Wholesaler	4	0	25	0	25	50	-
Waste management	0	-	-	-	-	-	-
Other	5	40	20	0	0	40	-

Q10 was directed at suppliers of single-use disposable cups and was therefore only answered by 217 respondents. Among those who answered, one fifth (21%) agreed with the recording requirements set out in the consultation paper – 7% strongly agreed and 14% agreed. A further 9% were neutral, 6% disagreed and almost two thirds (64%) strongly disagreed. While 28% of individuals agreed and 51% disagreed, opposition was higher among organisations of whom 79% disagreed, including 74% who disagreed strongly. This disagreement was driven by vending retail organisations, all of whom disagreed strongly, though 43% of convenience / hospitality retail organisations also disagreed strongly. Among the small number of other organisations who answered, opinions were very mixed, with public bodies most likely to agree with the reporting requirements (86%).

One in ten respondents provided information in support of their answer to the closed question. However, it should be noted that just over one quarter of those responding did not indicate they were suppliers of single-use cups but provided an answer regardless.

Recording requirements could create additional administrative burden

Several respondents, including almost twice as many organisations than individuals, disagreed with the recording requirement because it was seen as an additional administrative burden and therefore unnecessary and overly complicated.

“Just more paperwork for what is a tiny part of our business (takeaway coffee in a bar and visitor centre). Trading standards officers should be mandated to check that the charge is being applied. More than this is frankly unnecessarily onerous and adds to the weight of poor legislative costs and bureaucracy imposed on Scottish businesses.” - Fyne Ales Ltd

“SWA are of the view that establishing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are essential to track the impact of the charge on single-use cup usage and waste reduction. However, it remains unclear how success will be measured, or which benchmarks would justify the administrative and economic burden placed on businesses and local authorities.” – Scottish Wholesale Association

A small number of respondents, three quarters of which were organisations, expressed the view that the administrative burden of recording would affect small businesses the most. While a few appeared to be referring more generally to the impact of applying a charge to single-use cups in general rather than the recording requirement, others suggested the increase in administrative resources, such as time spent setting up systems and gathering data, could harm small or independent shops and potentially lead to closures.

The vending retail campaign response noted that the administrative burden was complicated by their obligations to report paper cup usage under the terms of the mandatory paper cup takeback scheme. However, since this consultation closed it has been announced that this scheme is no longer going ahead.

Support for the suggested recording requirements

Support for the recording standards was noted by some respondents. A few supported the requirements as they felt they were straightforward and clear or that the data collected would be useful for monitoring the scheme’s success. Respondents noted that point-of-sale software could collect data by adding the cup as a product.

“We note the proposal for businesses to record the details of the charge, but without the need for formal reporting. This is a sensible measure. We would broadly support this approach on the same metrics as the carrier bag charge if all businesses faced an equal recording requirement.” – Scottish Retail Consortium

Some explicitly supported the deduction of reasonable costs associated with administering the charge. They felt that this would make the system viable, support small businesses, and encourage compliance. ASSIST FM and Highland Council, however, questioned whether the Scottish Government should set a standard handling fee to ensure it is equitable for all parties.

A few supported the proposal, feeling that the data collected would be useful for monitoring the scheme's success and viability for manufacturers and suppliers.

“Relevant key performance indicators and auditable financial records are key to ensure assessment of the scheme success is accurate. Charging must be financially viable to both suppliers and service providers.” - South Lanarkshire Council

Q11: To what extent do you agree with the enforcement regime as set out in the consultation paper? Please provide any information in support to your answer to Q11.

The consultation paper proposes that, as with the single-use carrier bag charge, enforcement should reside with the local authorities. The local authorities may use enforcement officers to test whether the suppliers are complying with the regulations.

The consultation paper proposes that failing to comply with the requirements could result in a summary conviction of a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (currently £10,000) or by conviction on indictment by a fine. It suggests additionally that local authorities be granted the ability to issue fixed penalty notices (FPNs) of a maximum £200 and a discounted amount of £100 if paid early. It notes that if funds were to be collected centrally by the Scottish Government, the enforcement agency would likely be Revenue Scotland.

Audience	Sample size (n=)	% Strongly agree	% Agree	% Neither	% Disagree	% Strongly disagree	% No answer
All respondents	1068	15	21	11	14	25	15
All answering	907	17	24	12	17	29	-
Individuals	740	20	25	13	10	33	-
Organisations:	167	5	22	10	48	14	-
All retail	110	4	6	9	69	12	-
- Retail - Vending	73	0	0	0	100	0	-
- Retail - Convenience / Hospitality	30	10	13	23	10	43	-
- Retail - Trade Association	4	0	25	75	0	0	-
- Retail - Events / Festivals	3	33	67	0	0	0	-
Manufacturer / packaging	10	0	30	20	10	40	-
Environmental NGO	12	0	67	17	17	0	-
Public sector inc. local authority	15	13	73	7	0	7	-
Quality / consumer protection	2	0	0	0	50	50	-
Wholesaler	4	0	25	25	0	50	-
Waste management	1	0	100	0	0	0	-
Other	13	23	46	8	0	23	-

Among those answering Q11, 41% agreed with the enforcement regime set out in the consultation paper – 17% strongly agreed and 24% agreed. A further 12% were neutral, 17% disagreed and 29% strongly disagreed. While a similar pattern was recorded by individuals, views were less supportive among organisations. Although 27% of organisations agreed overall, only 5% strongly agreed compared to 20% of individuals; at the other end of the scale, 62% of organisations disagreed compared to 43% of individuals. Among retailers who answered, there was higher disagreement, with 69% disagreeing and 12% strongly disagreeing, driven by disagreement expressed by the vending retail campaign response. Strong disagreement was particularly high among convenience / hospitality retail at 43%. Manufacturer / packaging organisations were also more likely to disagree (40% strongly disagree). However, agreement was higher among public sector organisations (87%) and environmental organisations (67%).

Just over one third of respondents provided more details about their responses to Q11. The most prevalent themes were:

• Concerns about the resourcing and funding of enforcement activity.
• Agreement with the proposed enforcement regime.
• Calls for higher or alternative penalties.

Resourcing and funding considerations

While the consultation paper acknowledged that details around additional costs and requirements in line with the Verity House Agreement would be discussed during the final policy development, many respondents raised concerns that there would need to be more resources and funding within local authorities to support strong enforcement. This was mentioned equally by both individuals and organisations, but public sector organisations were more likely to mention this theme than other types of organisations.

Many respondents were clear, however, that a strong deterrent is necessary to ensure compliance and that a deterrent needs to be enforceable. Referring to other models, such as the single-use carrier bag scheme, respondents felt it necessary to enhance capacity for local authorities to hire enforcement agents and make staffing and procedural changes.

“As has been shown by the recent Single-use Plastic bans there is insufficient funding for regulatory bodies to enforce the legislation so there will be pockets of traders who will ignore the regulations.” - Paper Cup Recovery and Recycling Group

“Given that this measure is modelled in line with the single-use carrier bag charge, it is within reason that local authorities are the enforcement agency. However, any enforcement responsibilities for local authorities would need to be supported by appropriate resources as there are currently severe resource constraints. Without additional funding, this would form part of regular operations, which in this case would be food law inspections.” – Glasgow City Council

General agreement with the enforcement regime

Many others expressed support for the proposed enforcement regime. In addition to general support, several reiterated the need for enforcement to ensure compliance and to make the charge equitable and consistent for all traders supplying single-use cups.

“Compliance enforcement is key to ensure success and prevent perverse behaviours from suppliers and must be seen to be done.” - Individual

Calls for higher penalties

Several respondents, primarily individuals and a mix of those who agreed and disagreed with the proposed regime, believed that enforcement penalties should be higher. Respondents thought that £200 may not be high enough for larger or chain businesses where it may be worth risking the penalty to keep consumer costs down. One individual suggested a FPN of £500 with an early repayment option of £400.

“Big businesses must adhere to this, so the penalties must be in line with their huge profits.” – Individual

In contrast, a few respondents, mostly individuals, believed the FPN was too high. Where detail was provided, respondents thought the proposed costs could be prohibitive for smaller or independent businesses.

Alternative penalties

Suggestions for other ways to penalise non-compliance were mentioned by some, including both those who disagreed with the proposed regime and others who agreed but wanted to ensure it was robust. These included:

• Including incentives for recycling single-use cups properly.
• Scaling or tiering the penalty to match the size of sales or the size of the retailer.
• Applying the enforcement to the manufacturer rather than the retailer.
• Starting with a pilot scheme and assessment before a full rollout.
• Making the fine proportionate to the size of the breach, e.g., based on the number of cups not charged for.

Other reasons for disagreement with the enforcement regime

Respondents also provided other less commonly mentioned reasons for disagreeing. A few individuals were against the idea of penalties or fines more generally. A few highlighted that they thought substantial fines would instead lead to deliberate non-cooperation and frustration. Respondents suggested using incentives, education, and support over penalties to initiate good compliance. A few others thought that FPNs were unfair, particularly on small businesses. Others mentioned that the criteria for exemptions were too vague, that the regime required too much of an administrative burden, and that it may lack teeth, particularly in rural areas and with smaller businesses.

Other considerations for the enforcement regime

One organisation provided specific points for further consideration when finalising the enforcement regime of the single-use cup charge. These included suggestions to:

• Clarify the terminology of the legislation, such as how “beverage” is defined.
• Be explicit about how pricing should appear on menus, advertised locations, such as online ordering sites, and signage to comply with regulations around hidden charges and make the fee clear to customers to ensure legal compliance.
• Consider how the charge could be levied through third-party food delivery apps.