Scottish Government asks UK firm to take over failed deposit return scheme
The Scottish Government has asked a UK firm to take over its failed deposit return scheme.
Ministers have laid an order before Holyrood, asking for approval for UK Deposit Management Organisation Limited to be designated as the administrator for a deposit return scheme (DRS) in Scotland.
Figures from Coca-Cola Europacific Partners, Co-op, Heineken, Lidl GB, Radnor Hills and Tesco sit as directors of the company.
The scheme would see shoppers charged a deposit when buying drinks in cans and bottles, which would be repaid to them when empty containers were returned.
A Scotland-specific scheme was scrapped after the UK Government declined a request for full exclusion from the Internal Market Act, which meant Scotland could not include glass in the scheme.
The Scottish Government is facing a £160m lawsuit over the failed scheme after a judge ruled a waste management firm's case could proceed.
Lord Clark ruled in January that Biffa Waste Services Limited's case against the Scottish Ministers could go ahead as the firm seeks damages.
The business decided to go to Scotland's highest court, the Court of Session in Edinburgh, because it believes the SNP government is responsible for it incurring a £150m loss.
Biffa is seeking compensation for the cash it invested in the collapsed scheme and the subsequent loss of profit.
The firm believes the Scottish Government misrepresented the scheme when it assured Biffa it would go ahead.
The company is said to have relied on personal assurances from Green Party co-leader Lorna Slater as a reason to invest £55m in vehicles and equipment to prepare for the DRS, before she scrapped it in June 2023.
The UK Deposit Management Organisation Limited is set to run the scheme across England, Scotland and Northern Ireland due to be launched October 2027.
There will be three legally distinct deposit return schemes in the UK: one in England and Northern Ireland; one in Wales; and one in Scotland, the UK Government said.
Scotland's acting net zero secretary Gillian Martin said: 'Establishing a deposit return scheme in Scotland has been a long-running and consistent commitment of the Scottish Government.
'A deposit return scheme will reduce the litter on our streets, increase the recycling of drinks containers and support our net zero ambitions.
'Scottish Ministers have decided that UK Deposit Management Organisation Limited should be designated as the scheme administrator for Scotland, and have laid before the Scottish Parliament the draft Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland (Designation of Scheme Administrator) Order 2025, which requires approval by the Parliament before taking effect.
'This decision marks an important milestone as we progress towards launching the scheme in October 2027.
'We will continue to engage constructively with UK DMO Ltd, industry and the other nations across the UK to support the delivery of a successful deposit return scheme.'
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
22 minutes ago
- ITV News
Protesters raise environmental fears as wait continues for Sizewell C funding announcement
Hundreds of people voiced their concerns over the multi-billion pound Sizewell C nuclear power station on the Suffolk coastline ahead of an expected announcement from the Government. The rally on Sizewell Beach on Saturday, organised by Stop Sizewell C and Together Against Sizewell C, included speeches from campaigners against the major project including Greenpeace members, and musical performances. The peaceful protest ended with the 300-strong crowd walking to the Sizewell complex and tying ribbons with messages, emphasising people's concerns, to the gates. Plans for Sizewell C were given the go ahead by the then Chancellor in November 2022 but the funding is yet to be approved by the Government, although an announcement on the project is expected in Labour's Spending Review on Wednesday 11 June. Construction has already started for the nuclear site and surrounding infrastructure on the Suffolk coast which will sit next to the Sizewell B plant, and has already been given £250m in local funding. Once it is operational, it is expected to contribute £40m a year to the local economy and employ 900 people in skilled jobs, according to a Sizewell C spokesperson. But many people fear the environmental impact of Sizewell C and believe it will destroy the area. Jenny Kirtley, from Together Against Sizewell C, said: "You've only got to look around the area and see the devastation that's happened. I've been fighting this for 12 years. We knew it would be bad but we didn't know it would be so devastating. I mean a whole area is changing before our very eyes and it's heartbreaking. "There are a huge mountains of earth everywhere and of course the wildlife is suffering. The deers don't know where to go. They're rambling around everywhere. The birds are leaving their nests. "It's all very well saying it's going to create thousands of jobs but who's going to work in the supermarkets the care homes the restaurants you know this is a small area. "We've got six thousand people living around here so where are people going to live? We know rents are going sky high so it's going to get worse and it's going to be a real problem." Alison Downes, from Stop Sizewell C, also believed the project would be a waste of tax-payers money and there were better options to provide renewable energy. She said: "We've always had people behind us in the local area. I think a lot of new people have woken up and seen the destruction that's been caused by the project. They are now feeling the same the same sense of outrage that we do. "Sizewell C is too slow, risky and expensive to be the solution to our climate urgency. This is the wrong type of reactor. It's in the wrong place on an eroding coastline so we are here to express our outrage about size we see." The outrage rally, which was the third of it's kind, was also a tribute to Pete Wilkinson - a former chairman of Together Against Sizewell C, who died in January 2025. His daughters Emily and Amy Wilkinson, were at the event and spoke about their father and the rally. Emily Wilkinson, 29, said: "Dad was such a fantastic human being. He was a passionate and courageous man who spent his entire life fighting whatever he saw is wrong. That's what drove him in life. He saw the beauty in the planet and fought for it every single time." The Government said Sizewell C would be "an important role in helping the UK achieve energy security and net zero, while securing thousands of good, skilled jobs and supporting our energy independence beyond 2030". A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: "Nuclear power has the potential to boost our supply of secure homegrown power and generate major investment nationwide.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come
Did Zia Yusuf's dramatic (and as it turns out, temporary) resignation on the day of the Hamilton by-election cost Reform the seat? Of course not. The idea that chaos in Reform puts off its voters is based on a misunderstanding of what motivates those voters. Reform exists because the older parties failed. You might argue that not all of that failure was their fault. Some of the issues that enrage the electorate – poor public services, high taxes, rising prices, dwindling social capital – are the products of a lockdown that 93 per cent of the country demanded. Others are products of our demographic decline: nations with elderly populations are bound to be less dynamic. Equally, though, there have been unforced errors and broken promises, above all on immigration. Reform is a howl of protest against those betrayals. It is an essentially negative vote, and I say that in no slighting spirit. Every party attracts negative votes. I used to get lots of them as a Conservative MEP when people wanted to punish Labour governments. Negative votes can take you, Trump-like, to the very top. I simply make the point that Reform's supporters show scant interest in their party's policies, let alone its personnel. Reform came from nowhere in the Hamilton by-election despite not having a leader in Scotland. It is hard to imagine the famously resilient electors of Lanarkshire determining their vote on the basis of an unelected party official resigning in London. If we want to play 'what if', the thing that might have given Reform the extra 1,471 votes it needed was the backing of the local Conservatives. Not every Tory would vote for Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate, of course. Still, the electoral system used for Holyrood argues strongly for a deal at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Just as the SNP and the Scottish Greens used to maximise their representation by focusing respectively on the constituencies and the top-up list, so Reform and the Tories should do the same in 11 months' time. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the parties have similar policies but different electorates. The Scottish Conservatives are strong in the Borders and the north-east, Reform in the more populous Central Belt. An understanding between them would leave both with more MSPs next May. Such a deal in Wales might have put Reform into office had the principality not just ditched that voting system and adopted EU-style proportional representation, but that's another story. How many Tory and Reform voters would co-operate? Although the two manifestos are compatible – lower taxes, strong defence, less wokery, secure borders, growth over greenery – tonal and aesthetic differences remain. Some Reform supporters will never vote Conservative, either because they can't forgive the tax rises and immigration failures of the last administration or, conversely, because they are former Labour voters who would never back the party of Margaret Thatcher. Some Conservatives – a smaller number – recoil from a party they see as a Trumpian personality cult. One way to express the difference is this. The Tories, after three and a half centuries, have a sense of the trade-offs and complexities involved in holding office. Reform is in the happy position of being able to claim that it is simply a question of willpower. Consider the issue of immigration. On Friday, Kemi Badenoch embarked on a major overhaul of the Blairite juridical state. She asked her shadow law officers to look at all treaties and domestic laws that hinder elected ministers from fulfilling their promises, and set five tests by which to measure success. Will we be able to deport people who should not be here, protect our veterans from 'lawfare', prioritise British citizens in housing and welfare, keep malefactors in prison, and get things built? Meeting all five tests is hard, but not impossible. Badenoch wants to take her time and get it right. But, to some, it will come across as equivocation. 'Why can't you just say now that you would leave the European Convention on Human Rights?', they ask. I have no doubt that that is where she will end up. But we need policies, not slogans. Leaving the ECHR is not a skeleton key that unlocks every door. Our problems go far deeper. Outside the ECHR, we would be constrained by numerous other international accords: the UN Refugee Convention; the Paris Agreement on climate change (under which our Australia Free Trade Agreement is being challenged in court); the Aarhus Convention, which caps costs for activist groups bringing eco-challenges. Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been used both to challenge deportation orders and to block welfare reforms. All these things need to be looked at, calmly and thoroughly. Nor is it just foreign treaties. The last Labour government passed a series of domestic statutes that constrained its successors: the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act and a dozen more. We need to tackle these, too. What, if anything, should replace the ECHR? Do we update our own 1689 Bill of Rights? Do we offer a CANZUK version? Do we rely on pure majoritarianism? Even if all the obnoxious laws were swept away, what would we do about Left-wing activists who become judges rather than go to the bother of getting themselves elected to anything, and who legislate from the bench? Can we return to the pre-Blair arrangements where the lord chancellor is in charge? My point is that all this requires patience, detail and nuance. But a lot of voters are understandably impatient, and regard nuance as the sign of a havering milksop – a nuancy-boy, so to speak. They see not a Conservative Party determined to repair the broken state machine so that it can deliver on its manifesto, but a bunch of vacillating wets shying away from simple solutions. This worries me. Suppose that Nigel Farage were to form the next government and leave the ECHR, only to find that illegal immigrants continued to arrive, that judges continued to apply the rules asymmetrically, and that every one of his statutes ended up being snarled up in the courts? What would be the impact on our democracy? I pick the example of immigration because it is the most salient, but much the same applies across government. Reducing spending involves trade-offs, and anyone who pretends that there are huge savings to be made by scrapping DEI programmes or cutting waste has not looked at the figures. The same is true of reducing welfare claims, scrapping quangos, reforming the NHS and raising school standards. The diagnosis may be easy, but the treatment will be long and difficult, and will require more than willpower. In his response to Yusuf's resignation, Farage reminded us why he is a successful politician. He blamed Islamophobic trolls for making his party chairman's life impossible, thereby both anticipating the 'no one can work with Nigel' charge and reinforcing his non-racist credentials. The same calculation led him to condemn Tommy Robinson, and played a part in his falling-out with Rupert Lowe. Farage knows that there are hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims, many of whom, like his white supporters, are former Labour voters in decaying northern towns. Unnoticed by the national media, Farage has been reaching out to these communities. Imagine Farage's political nous and personal energy allied to the detailed policy work that the Tories are undertaking. Imagine his reach, whether in Hamilton or in some of those Muslim-dominated old industrial towns, complementing the traditional Conservative appeal to property-owners. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Next year's Scottish elections will be the first test of whether figures on the British Right are prepared to put country before party. A possible by-election in Jacob Rees-Mogg's old seat may be another. But one thing is already clear. If the two parties are taking lumps out of each other all the way to the next general election, they will lose – and they will deserve to.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Katie Miller, Stephen Miller's wife, in a ‘tricky situation' after Musk and Trump's falling out
Katie Miller, the wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, recently departed from the Trump administration to work for Elon Musk, days before the spectacular falling out between President Donald Trump and the billionaire. The 33-year-old Miller was one of Musk's first hires as he established the Department of Government Efficiency and began reducing the federal workforce. She left the administration alongside him last week. Like Musk, she was designated as a 'special government employee' during her time in government, which allowed her to work for Musk and Trump, as well as in the private sector, simultaneously. Miller even helped to set up the departing press conference in the Oval Office featuring Musk and Trump, according to The Wall Street Journal. Musk and Trump's relationship fell apart in public on Thursday, with Musk unfollowing Stephen Miller on X. Friends of Miller told the paper that she was in a difficult position between Trump and Musk. 'Katie Miller was a critical reason DOGE was able to get off the ground and deliver massive cuts to waste, fraud, and abuse for the American people,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told the outlet. This isn't the first time that Miller has been caught in the crossfire of a Trump feud. Miller also worked for then-Vice President Mike Pence when Trump began attacking him for not aiding him in his attempt to overturn the 2020 election towards the end of his first term. However, at the time of the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, she was on maternity leave. In December last year, Miller became one of the first DOGE staffers announced by the then-president-elect. However, her work at DOGE soon became the catalyst for disagreements with the White House, where top Trump aides argued that she hadn't sufficiently convinced Musk to work alongside the administration. Top administration officials told The Journal that she often spoke on behalf of Musk, issued orders about what agencies should do, and how the government's work should be communicated. Officials were concerned about her continuing work for P2. However, she left the firm after The Journal published an article about her work there. She then also departed the White House to work for Musk, just before the blowup between the billionaire and the president. Miller has been described as having endless energy and as being fiercely protective of her husband. Current and previous co-workers told The Journal that she could go from charming to abrasive. Those who know her told the paper that she has a 'YOLO' tattoo on the inside of her lip. Miller has at times worked for clients while lobbying the government, simultaneously addressing government issues. She quickly rose through the ranks after being hired in 2015 by Republican U.S. Sen. Steve Daines of Montana. Former Daines aide Jason Thielman told The Journal that 'Everything was always at full speed, full throttle.' 'Sometimes, she just exhausted people, and they gave her what she wanted,' he added of her battles with reporters. She joined the Department of Homeland Security during Trump's first term before working for Pence. It was during her time at DHS that she met Stephen Miller. 'Every Trump White House had its divisions, but she was always willing to go to bat to protect the VP's prerogatives,' Pence's Chief of Staff Marc Short told the paper. Following the insurrection, Stephen Miller kept working for Trump, and she remained in Pence's office. While she was placed on Pence's postpresidential payroll, partly because she needed healthcare, according to Pence's advisors, his office subsequently severed connections with her after Stephen Miller began working with then-President Trump. He continued to target his former vice president. After joining the Republican consulting firm P2 Public Affairs following Trump's 2021 departure from office, she subsequently became the top point of contact between Musk and the 2024 Trump campaign. She often joined Musk at events and then began advising Robert F. Kennedy, who later became Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, now known as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Pence opposed Kennedy's appointment, and in January of this year, Miller took aim at her former boss, saying that he only had 'family values' when it was 'politically expedient' and called him a 'footnote of American history.'
