A legal challenge to the launch of the UK’s first deposit return scheme risks throwing the landmark programme into chaos, The Grocer can exclusively reveal.
It is understood the Scottish Grocers’ Federation is seeking a judicial review into the way the Scottish government has embarked on DRS north of the border.
It is believed to dispute the impact assessment produced by ministers and the extent of the predicted environmental gains to be achieved from DRS.
The organisation is also angry at the potential impact of the scheme on smaller traders and believes large retailers have been given too much influence in the launch of the scheme administrator Circularity Scotland.
Sources familiar with the situation say it has strong echoes of the dispute between the Scotch Whisky Association and the Scottish government. The SWA mounted a five-year legal challenge against plans for minimum unit pricing, which – although it was eventually lost in 2017 – resulted in huge delays to another landmark policy.
DRS has already been delayed in Scotland and by the UK government, with Scottish ministers shunting back the start originally planned in July this year until August 2023.
Meanwhile, a UK government version is not expected until at least the end of 2024, with strong speculation it could be delayed further by events in Ukraine.
However, the latest twist threatens to throw a massive new spanner in the works for DRS.
The SGF has previously accused Zero Waste Scotland of failing to consult with retailers about DRS and warned about huge set-up costs faced by small retailers. There are also understood to be concerns that smaller retailers would be bypassed by customers using reverse vending machines in larger supermarkets.
However, the SGF was a founder member of Circularity Scotland, the administrator set up to run the scheme alongside members such as the major supermarkets.
A source said: “You only have to whisper the initials MUP to imagine the potential significance of a prolonged legal challenge to DRS. It’s already a hugely political issue and this will make it even more contentious.”
The SGF declined to comment.
No comments yet