Charging for single - use disposable beverage cups: consultation analysis

8. Conclusions

Many individuals and organisations with detailed knowledge participated in the consultation, sharing their views on charging for single-use disposable beverage cups. This report provides a high-level summary of the consultation responses. For more detail, readers are encouraged to read individual responses where permission was given for publication via the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

There was little consensus about the most reasonable minimum price for a single-use cup. Three fifths of respondents selected a price, with the most preferred being £0.25, followed by at least £0.50. The potential to encourage behaviour change was the most common reason cited by those who selected a price, particularly those preferring a higher price, with others feeling their chosen price is fair and proportionate or likely to minimise the impact on businesses. Conversely, one third indicated there should be no charge, with these respondents highlighting potential negative cost implications for individuals and businesses or stressing their general opposition to a charge. Opposition was emphasised in the campaign response from the vending retail sector.

Several other themes were raised by a mix of respondents. Many felt a charge was impractical, either due to the challenge of always having a reusable cup on hand or because of hygiene concerns. Many called for alternative approaches to be used, such as taking action to incentivise greater use of reusable cups, while several felt the charge should not apply to recyclable or biodegradable single-use cups. Some organisations specifically noted that a charge could be counterproductive to other schemes which are being considered or introduced. However, several respondents left positive comments about the approach as they felt it was important to minimise the use of single-use cups. When asked whether suppliers could choose the price they charge for a single-use cup, instead of the proposed approach of introducing a standard minimum price, a clear majority of respondents were against this alternative approach.

Mixed views were expressed on the proposed exemptions. Two thirds supported an exemption for settings where a reusable cup is not practical, while around half supported an exemption for single-use cups sold in schools or for drinks sold from vending machines, with the vending retail campaign response calling for the latter. In open comments, respondents commonly expressed the view that there should be no further exemptions so that behaviour change and any positive environmental impacts can be maximised. Conversely, many advocated for no exemptions at all, either because they felt exemptions could undermine the purpose of the charge, or because they felt the charge should not be implemented.

There was a clear preference for the funds generated by a charge to be directed to the advancement of environmental protection or improvement, with anti-littering initiatives, education and improved recycling infrastructure being recommended. While there was some support for those levying the charge to retain the funds to donate to good causes, others expressed concern that this could lead to businesses keeping the proceeds. Some also suggested that the funds generated should be distributed to the third sector.

Regarding implementing and enforcing the charge, respondents raised concerns about the potential administrative burden of updating systems, signage and recording reporting data, and called for clear regulations and guidance to facilitate implementation, particularly for small businesses. Respondents also emphasised the need for clear regulations and communication with businesses about the new charge, and suggested financial assistance, such as grants, to help businesses implement the charge. Others called for public awareness campaigns to inform consumers about the level of the charge and how the net proceeds are being used. While many respondents were clear that a strong deterrent is necessary to ensure compliance, there were concerns about insufficient resources and funding within local authorities to support strong enforcement, as well as calls for the use of higher or proportionate penalties.

Among the small proportion of respondents who commented on the interim impact assessments, potential impacts on various groups, including disabled people, people with health conditions, older people and low-income families, were highlighted, with suggestions for exemptions for these groups. There were also calls for the Strategic Environmental Assessment to consider, or for further research into, the environmental impact of greater use of reusable cups.

Overall, the key message is that while many support the proposals and their potential to encourage behaviour change, many other individuals and organisations either opposed the introduction of a charge or highlighted multiple issues that they felt needed to be considered before progressing the proposals. The responses, therefore, provide valuable and informative evidence for the Scottish Government to draw on when developing the final policy and implementation plan.