Deposit return scheme consultation: analysis of responses

14 Regulation of a DRS in Scotland (Q35–Q39)

14.1 Questions 35 to 39 asked about regulatory arrangements for a deposit return scheme. The consultation set out brief information about the types of activities that might need to be regulated (e.g. labelling, product approval, return points, transportation and handling of containers), and the options for doing so. Each of the five questions focused on different aspects of regulation.

Question 35: Which option for regulating producers do you think is most appropriate? Please explain your reasons. [Regulation by an existing body, most likely Trading Standards or SEPA / The establishment of a new body to oversee regulation / Regulation by the scheme administrator]

Question 36: Which option for regulating return sites, including retailers, is most appropriate? Please explain your reasons. [Regulation by an existing body, most likely Trading Standards or SEPA / The establishment of a new body to oversee regulation / Regulation by the scheme administrator]

Question 37: What level of regulatory power do you think is appropriate for the system administrator?

Question 38: In particular, do you think the administrator should have a role in approving products that go on sale to make sure they are compatible with the scheme? [Yes / No / Don’t know]

Question 39: Do you agree that the Scottish Government should be responsible for regulating the system administrator? [Yes / No / Don’t know]

Question 39a: If yes, should this be done via SEPA? [Yes / No / Don’t know]

Question 39b: If no, what other organisation should undertake this role?

Regulation of producers and return sites (Q35 and Q36)

14.2 Questions 35 and 36 asked about regulatory arrangements for producers (Question 35) and return sites (Question 36). 

14.3 For each of these two-part questions, respondents were asked to select one of three options as their preferred form of regulation, and to explain the reasons for their choice. Tables showing the response to the initial tick-box part of each of these questions are shown below. There was a great deal of overlap in the comments made by respondents across these two questions, and they are therefore reported together.

14.4 Table 14.1 shows that overall, two-thirds (67%) of respondents thought that an existing body, such as Trading Standards or SEPA, should have responsibility for regulating producers taking part in the DRS. The remaining one-third of respondents were divided about whether it was preferable to establish a new regulatory body (16%) or allow the scheme administrator to regulate producers (17%). Individuals were more likely than organisations to say that regulation should be undertaken by an existing body (68% and 54% respectively). Those organisations most in favour of regulation by an existing body were public sector organisations (86%), recycling and waste management organisations (91%) and community bodies (75%). Charities (70%), food and drink producers (61%), and organisations in the hospitality and restaurant trade (60%) and were most likely to think the scheme administrator should carry out this role.

Table 14.1: Q35 – Which option for regulating producers do you think is most appropriate?

	Regulation by existing body (e.g. Trading Standards or SEPA)		Establish new body		Regulation by the scheme admin		Total
Respondent type	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Public sector organisations	18	86%	2	10%	1	5%	21	100%
Food and drink producers	4	22%	3	17%	11	61%	18	100%
Charities	3	30%	–	0%	7	70%	10	100%
Retailers	8	62%	–	0%	5	38%	13	100%
Recycling / waste mgmt orgs	10	91%	1	9%	–	0%	11	100%
Packaging manufacturers	2	22%	4	44%	3	33%	9	100%
Community bodies	3	75%	1	25%	–	0%	4	100%
Environmental consultancies	3	50%	–	0%	3	50%	6	100%
Hospitality and restaurant trade	2	40%	–	0%	3	60%	5	100%
DRS companies	1	50%	–	0%	1	50%	2	100%
Other organisations	3	50%	1	17%	2	33%	6	100%
Total organisations	57	54%	12	11%	36	34%	105	100%
Total individuals	744	68%	186	17%	169	15%	1,099	100%
Total (organisations and individuals)	801	67%	198	16%	205	17%	1,204	100%

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding
Note: Eight organisations who submitted their responses by email selected two options. These views are not presented in the table but are discussed below.

14.5 Table 14.2 shows that views on regulation of return sites were similar to views on regulation of producers. Overall, nearly two-thirds (65%) of respondents thought that an existing body should have responsibility for regulating return sites. Just over a fifth of respondents (21%) thought the scheme administrator should regulate return sites, while the remaining 15% thought a new body should be established for this role. Individuals were more likely than organisations to say that return site regulation should be undertaken by an existing body (65% and 57% respectively). Those organisations most in favour of return site regulation by an existing body were recycling and waste management organisations (91%), public sector organisations (90%), and community bodies (75%). Charities (78%) and food and drink producers (72%) were most likely to advocate regulation of return sites by the scheme administrator.

Table 14.2: Q36 – Which option for regulating return sites, including retailers, is most appropriate?

	Regulation by existing body (e.g. Trading Standards or SEPA)		Establish new body		Regulation by the scheme admin		Total
Respondent type	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Public sector organisations	19	90%	2	10%	–	0%	21	100%
Food and drink producers	3	17%	2	11%	13	72%	18	100%
Charities	2	22%	–	0%	7	78%	9	100%
Retailers	9	64%	–	0%	5	36%	14	100%
Recycling / waste mgmt orgs	10	91%	–	0%	1	9%	11	100%
Packaging manufacturers	2	40%	–	0%	3	60%	5	100%
Community bodies	3	75%	1	25%	–	0%	4	100%
Environmental consultancies	4	67%	1	17%	1	17%	6	100%
Hospitality and restaurant trade	2	40%	–	0%	3	60%	5	100%
DRS companies	1	50%	–	0%	1	50%	2	100%
Other organisations	3	50%	1	17%	2	33%	6	100%
Total organisations	58	57%	7	7%	36	36%	101	100%
Total individuals	707	65%	165	15%	210	19%	1,082	100%
Total (organisations and individuals)	765	65%	172	15%	246	21%	1,183	100%

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Note: Nine organisations who submitted their responses by email selected two options. These views are not presented in the table but are discussed below.

14.6 In the vast majority of cases (more than 90%), respondents who answered Question 35 and Question 36 selected the same option on both occasions. 

14.7 It should be noted that at both Question 35 and 36 a small number of organisations selected two of the possible options and others used their comments to indicate a preference for a regulatory approach involving more than on body. Most of these respondents thought that both the scheme administrator and an existing body should have responsibility for regulating producers. 

14.8 The section below covers views on each of the regulatory options offered, as well as presenting other main points raised by respondents. 

14.9 Across all respondents – and organisations in particular – there was a widespread endorsement of the importance of regulation and governance. However, there was a mix of views about how this might best be delivered, and about the advantages and disadvantages of each of the options offered, as follows:

• Regulation via an existing body: This was the most popular option, particularly among individuals. It was argued that building on the knowledge, skills and regulatory expertise in existing organisations, and taking advantage of already established processes, networks and relationships provided the most sensible and cost-effective solution for DRS regulation. This option was also seen as providing independence, impartiality, and integrity, as well as a coherent and joined up approach. Respondents often noted the perceived ‘good fit’ between the current roles of Trading Standards and / or SEPA and the regulatory demands resulting from a new deposit return scheme (e.g. waste management, environmental impacts, consumer protection and retail pricing); some favoured SEPA, some favoured Trading Standards while some saw a role for both bodies. Other respondents suggested external regulation might also be provided via other routes such as environmental health and Inland Revenue. In contrast those opposed to this option thought that existing bodies did not have the capacity or the ‘clout’ to carry out the role.
• Regulation by the scheme administrator: Respondents who favoured this option saw it as offering an efficient and effective form of industry-specific regulation – the administrator would have the necessary operational knowledge and expertise in this new and specialised area to be able to respond quickly to issues as they arose. It was also argued that it was in the interests of the administrator to ensure a well-run and well-regulated scheme. However, respondents also often saw this working in conjunction with external regulation and / or highlighted the need for openness and transparency with regard to how the scheme administrator operated, and for appropriate governance and accountability arrangements to be in place. Some said their support for this option was dependent on the scheme administrator being a public body. Those opposed to regulation by the scheme administrator were concerned about the implications for independence and impartiality of such a model, and about potential conflicts of interest. 
• Regulation via a new body: Those favouring the establishment of a new body with a specific DRS remit thought that this would ensure an appropriate focus and a ‘bespoke’ approach to regulation, as well as offering independence and impartiality. A new body would offer the opportunity for a fresh start, and a new perspective in this important area of work. Some respondents (mainly packaging manufacturers) thought that a new body might also be given a regulatory role with regard to household waste and recycling. Some of those favouring a new body did so because of perceived shortcomings with existing regulatory bodies. The main arguments against this option were that a new body would involve unnecessary bureaucracy and expense, and would take time to set up and bed in.

14.10 Regardless of the option(s) selected at the closed parts to Question 35 and 36, respondents used their comments to describe approaches involving more than one body – most often this was the scheme administrator plus one or more existing body (or bodies). Those suggesting a combined approach of this type included respondents (packaging manufacturers, DRS companies and food and drink producers) who put forward a distinct model which would see regulation delivered via the scheme administrator (a not-for profit industry body), overseen by an ‘oversight board’, with external regulation provided via (an) existing body (or bodies). However, a broad range of respondents envisaged regulation being provided via a combination of internal management and external scrutiny, with many emphasising the importance of collaboration or close working relationships in this activity.  

14.11 Whichever option was suggested, respondents stressed the need for adequate funding and resources for any body given regulatory responsibilities. Some organisations (e.g. retail bodies) argued that regulatory costs should be met by the government.

14.12 There was also a general view – common among individuals, but also expressed by organisations – that it made sense to have the same body regulating both producers and return sites. This was seen as a cost-effective and efficient arrangement which avoided organisational complexity and provide clarity for the public and DRS stakeholders.

Regulatory powers of scheme administrator (Q37 and Q38)

14.13 Two questions, Questions 37 and 38, asked for views on the scheme administrator’s role in regulation. 

14.14 Question 37 asked about the level of regulatory power the administrator should have. This was an open question – respondents were invited to give comments without completing an initial tick-box part question. 

14.15 Note that a substantial proportion of individuals who responded (around a third) simply used their comments to say they didn’t know what level of regulatory power was appropriate. In addition, the comments provided by individuals and organisations were somewhat different in nature and so are dealt with separately below.

Views of individuals

14.16 For the most part individuals gave brief comments focusing on the degree of regulatory power the scheme administrator should have. Respondents fell into two main groups:

• Those who thought the administrator should have a high level of regulatory power. They typically called for the administrator to have ‘robust’ or ‘strong’ powers, ‘full’ powers, or ‘wide-ranging’ powers. Additionally, they wanted an administrator ‘with teeth’ who could take action to enforce compliance via fines and other sanctions (e.g. the removal of licences) imposed directly or via prosecution through the courts. Some respondents qualified their comments by saying that the administrator should carry out this role within a legal framework set by the government; should be answerable to a ‘board’ or to the government or Parliament with regard to performing its regulatory role; or that this role would only be appropriate if the administrator was a public body.
• Those who thought the scheme administrator should have no regulatory powers. These respondents thought the job of the administrator was to run an efficient and effective scheme, and that regulation, including regulation of the administrator, should be carried out by another external body – either an existing body or bodies (SEPA, Trading Standards, HSE etc.) or a new body with a specific DRS remit. There was a concern that giving the administrator regulatory powers amounted to ‘self-regulation’ which was seen as inappropriate, or would risk the creation of conflicts of interests. Nevertheless, respondents sometimes suggested that the administrator might still have a role in supporting regulatory activity by, for example, advising and ‘directing’ scheme operators with regard to compliance issues, and reporting non-compliance to the appropriate regulatory body.

14.17 Two further groups of respondents thought the administrator should have (i) ‘sufficient’ or ‘adequate’ regulatory powers in order to ensure an effective and successful scheme; or (ii) the ‘same’ powers or ‘equivalent’ powers to existing regulatory bodies.

Views of organisations

14.18 In contrast to individuals, organisations were more likely to discuss the role of the administrator within the broader regulatory context, and to provide views on (i) the areas of regulatory activity where administrators might have a role and (ii) how this role might be carried out. 

14.19 Broadly speaking, organisations envisaged a model along the following lines:

(i) The scheme arrangements and any related regulatory requirements, enforcement powers and punitive sanctions would be set out on a statutory basis.

(ii) The scheme administrator would operate with a high level of autonomy within the framework set by government. Within that framework the administrator would set scheme rules and carry out operational tasks such as setting deposit levels and producer fees, approving and registering products, agreeing labelling, monitoring administrative and financial returns from different parties, contracting with operators, overseeing finances and accounting, and overseeing performance.   

(iii) The scheme administrator would have a role in investigating apparent non-compliance, and ‘directing’ or encouraging compliance, possibly through the use of tools such as enforcement notices, although some suggested the right to impose direct sanctions.

(iv) The scheme administrator would have the power – or the obligation – to refer cases of non-compliance with scheme rules or other breaches of the law to the appropriate regulatory body or agency for further action to be taken.

14.20 Organisational respondents also suggested that:

• The administrator would work closely with any regulatory body (or bodies).
• The administrator would themselves be regulated by an external body (see also Question 39). 
• Any regulatory activity should be conducted in line with the Scottish Regulators Code of Practice. 

14.21 In a few cases, respondents suggested that conflicts of interest may arise if the scheme administrator role was undertaken by an industry or commercial body who was then overseeing other commercial organisations. There was one suggestion from the public sector that regulation would be more straightforward if SEPA fulfilled the scheme administrator role. 

Scheme administrator role in product approval

14.22 Question 38 asked specifically whether the administrator should have a role in approving products to ensure compatibility with the scheme. This was a two-part question with an initial closed question followed by space for respondents to explain their views.

14.23 Table 14.3 shows that the majority of all respondents thought the scheme administrator should have a role in approving products that go on sale to make sure they are compatible with the scheme. However, individuals were somewhat more likely than organisations to offer this view (70% compared to 59%). Among organisations, charities (90%), recycling and waste management organisations (82%) and environmental consultancies (100%) were particularly likely to think that the administrator should be involved in approving products, while retailers were more likely than other organisations to think that the scheme administrator should not have this type of role – 59% said ‘no’.

Table 14.3: Q38 – Do you think the administrator should have a role in approving products that go on sale to make sure they are compatible with the scheme?

	Yes		No		Don't know		Total
Respondent type	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Public sector organisations	9	45%	6	30%	5	25%	20	100%
Food and drink producers	12	63%	5	26%	2	11%	19	100%
Charities	9	90%	–	0%	1	10%	10	100%
Retailers	6	35%	10	59%	1	6%	17	100%
Recycling / waste mgmt orgs	9	82%	2	18%	–	0%	11	100%
Packaging manufacturers	9	60%	6	40%	–	0%	15	100%
Community bodies	1	20%	2	40%	2	40%	5	100%
Environmental consultancies	6	100%	–	0%	–	0%	6	100%
Hospitality and restaurant trade	2	40%	2	40%	1	20%	5	100%
DRS companies	2	100%	–	0%	–	0%	2	100%
Other organisations	3	60%	2	40%	–	0%	5	100%
Total organisations	68	59%	35	30%	12	10%	115	100%
Total individuals	773	70%	162	15%	177	16%	1,112	100%
Total (organisations and individuals)	841	69%	197	16%	189	15%	1,227	100%

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding

14.24 The sections below look in turn at reasons for agreeing and disagreeing with the administrator having a role in product approval.

Views in support of the administrator having a role in product approval

14.25 Respondents who ticked ‘yes’ at Question 38 generally focused on the principle of product approval in their comments. Most of these respondents thought product approval was essential to ensure a successful, efficient and effective scheme. They said an approval process was key to (i) ensuring compatibility with the scheme (ii) maximising recycling and (iii) encouraging packaging redesign and innovation (with some advocating a general move towards greater standardisation of packaging). Respondents pointed to successful schemes elsewhere which incorporated product approval.  

14.26 However, there was a mix of views with regard to the specific role of the administrator in this approval process. Some argued that product approval sat well with the broader remit the administrator might have with regard to tasks such as overseeing labelling, and maintaining a database of products, and would be a good fit with the skills and expertise of the administrator. However, others envisaged the scheme administrator working in conjunction with other relevant bodies – typically, it was suggested that the administrator might carry out an advisory or consultative role while a third party – the scheme regulator, Trading Standards, SEPA – would be responsible for compliance and enforcement. Collaboration in setting the approval criteria was also called for. 

14.27 Some respondents who favoured an administrator role in product approval nevertheless had some concerns focusing on the importance of providing a simple and effective process which treated all producers fairly, and protected their commercial interests – the former was of particular importance to food and drink producers. These concerns were addressed by (other) respondents who highlighted the need for a straightforward, open, transparent and low-cost process, based on clear rules and parameters, or requirements set out in legislation.

Views opposed to the administrator having a role in product approval 

14.28 Those opposed to the administrator having a role in product approval put forward the following main arguments:

• A product approval process was not required. In most cases, respondents argued that compliance should be addressed via a reformed PRN scheme which would incentivise packaging redesign by producers, and / or via clear legislative and regulatory requirements enforced by third-party bodies (the government, SEPA, Trading Standards officials, Zero Waste Scotland, etc.). Some respondents said that an ‘all inclusive’ scheme (i.e. one that accepted all containers) would avoid the need for a product approval process. 
• A product approval process would have an adverse impact on producers and retailers in terms of time, cost and delay in launching products – this was of particular concern to those involved in the production and retail chain.
• Product approval was not the job of the scheme administrator as it (i) presented the potential for market interference and conflicts of interest (depending on the status of the administrator), and (ii) was a technical issue, beyond the expertise of the scheme administrator.

14.29 These points were most often made by organisations. In contrast, Individuals often simply said that this option (i.e. the scheme administrator approving products) would be too costly, too complex, or too bureaucratic, or would give the administrator too much ‘control’. 

14.30 In some cases, respondents indicated that, while they were opposed to the scheme administrator having a lead, sole or decision-making role in product approval, they nevertheless thought an advisory or consultative role would be appropriate, or were happy for the administrator to be involved in developing approval criteria. Again, these views were similar to those expressed by some who answered ‘yes’ at the tick-box question (see paragraphs 14.25 to 14.27).

Other comments

14.31 Other comments made on an occasional basis included the following:

• That a UK (or international) approach to setting criteria for product approval should be considered
• That the administrator would need to be adequately resourced to carry a product approval role
• That this role might be added at a future point.

14.32 Additionally, a range of respondents drew a distinction between approval of ‘packaging’ or ‘containers’ and approval of ‘products’ or the ‘contents’ of containers. Respondents were often happy to endorse the former, but were concerned about the administrator role extending to take in the latter. Some sought clarity on which of these options was being addressed in the question asked.

Role of Scottish Government in regulating the system administrator (Q39)

14.33 Question 39 asked about regulation of the scheme administrator. Two tick-box questions asked respondents if the scheme administrator should be regulated by the Scottish Government and, if so, if this should be done via SEPA. A final part to the question was targeted at those who did not favour government regulation via SEPA and asked for views on who (else) might carry out this role.

14.34 Table 14.4 shows that, overall, there was strong support for giving the Scottish Government responsibility for regulating the scheme administrator – 89% of respondents answered ‘yes’ to this question. The pattern of response between organisations and individuals was similar. Among organisations, there was unanimous agreement among public sector organisations, charities, community bodies and the hospitality and restaurant trade for this idea. The main dissenting view was from retailers; just less than half of this group answered ‘no’ or ‘don’t know’ in response to this question.

Table 14.4: Q39 – Do you agree that the Scottish Government should be responsible for regulating the system administrator?

	Yes		No		Don't know		Total
Respondent type	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Public sector organisations	21	100%	–	0%	–	0%	21	100%
Food and drink producers	19	90%	–	0%	2	10%	21	100%
Charities	10	100%	–	0%	–	0%	10	100%
Retailers	10	59%	2	12%	5	29%	17	100%
Recycling / waste mgmt orgs	12	92%	–	0%	1	8%	13	100%
Packaging manufacturers	15	94%	1	6%	–	0%	16	100%
Community bodies	5	100%	–	0%	–	0%	5	100%
Environmental consultancies	5	83%	1	17%	–	0%	6	100%
Hospitality and restaurant trade	5	100%	–	0%	–	0%	5	100%
DRS companies	2	100%	–	0%	–	0%	2	100%
Other organisations	6	100%	–	0%	–	0%	6	100%
Total organisations	110	90%	4	3%	8	7%	122	100%
Total individuals	1,020	89%	44	4%	78	7%	1,142	100%
Total (organisations and individuals)	1,130	89%	48	4%	86	7%	1,264	100%

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding

14.35 There was less consensus on whether the government’s regulatory role should be provided via SEPA, as asked in Question 39a (See Table 14.5). Just over half (55%) said ‘yes’, a third (34%) said ‘don’t know’ and one in ten said ‘no’. Organisations were more likely than individuals to say ‘no’ (24% compared to 9%). Among organisations, those representing the hospitality and restaurant trade (80%), food and drink producers (63%) and retailers (53%) were more likely than other organisations to express uncertainty in relation to this question. Packaging manufacturers (70%) and recycling and waste management organisations (64%) were more likely than other organisations to answer ‘yes’, while charities were more likely to say ‘no’ (60%)..

Table 14.5: Q39a – If yes, should this be done via SEPA?

	Yes		No		Don't know		Total
Respondent type	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Public sector organisations	6	30%	10	50%	4	20%	20	100%
Food and drink producers	6	32%	1	5%	12	63%	19	100%
Charities	2	20%	6	60%	2	20%	10	100%
Retailers	3	20%	4	27%	8	53%	15	100%
Recycling / waste mgmt orgs	7	64%	1	9%	3	27%	11	100%
Packaging manufacturers	7	70%	–	0%	3	30%	10	100%
Community bodies	3	60%	2	40%	–	0%	5	100%
Environmental consultancies	2	33%	1	17%	3	50%	6	100%
Hospitality and restaurant trade	1	20%	–	0%	4	80%	5	100%
DRS companies	1	50%	1	50%	–	0%	2	100%
Other organisations	6	100%	–	0%	–	0%	6	100%
Total organisations	44	40%	26	24%	39	36%	109	100%
Total individuals	603	56%	102	9%	369	34%	1,074	100%
Total (organisations and individuals)	647	55%	128	11%	408	34%	1,183	100%

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding

14.36 Comments at Question 39a covered views on Scottish Government regulation, views on regulation via SEPA, and views on alternative regulatory arrangements. Each of these are discussed further below. 

Views on Scottish Government regulation of the scheme administrator

14.37 As shown in Table 14.4, there was strong support for Scottish Government regulation of the scheme administrator. Those offering this view thought it was right that the government should take ultimate responsibility for the scheme, and that this arrangement, underpinned by appropriate legislation and regulations, would ensure the required level of public accountability. Some, however, suggested that the government might be supported in this regulatory role by a stakeholder group of some type.

14.38 Those opposed to government regulation of the administrator argued that this role should be carried out by an independent, impartial body (e.g. a board made up of stakeholder representatives), or, alternatively, favoured ‘self-regulation’ provided by the industry. 

Views on regulation via SEPA

14.39 Respondents were more divided in their views on the option of regulation via SEPA. 

14.40 Those who supported this proposal thought that using an existing organisation would be cost-effective, and that SEPA had relevant expertise to carry out the role. Some respondents qualified their support by stressing the importance of SEPA being adequately resourced to carry out any new functions, or suggesting that SEPA might work with other bodies – Zero Waste Scotland, Audit Scotland, local authorities, COSLA and third sector organisations were all suggested as possible partners in carrying out regulatory activity.

14.41 In contrast those who argued against regulation via SEPA thought that this organisation lacked the necessary expertise, capacity or resources. Additionally, there was a concern that, based on performance in relation to its current remit, SEPA did not have sufficient ‘clout’ to carry out the role effectively.

Views on other regulatory arrangements

14.42 Question 39a specifically asked which other body might take on this regulatory role. The wide range of suggestions put forward included:

• Boards, panels or groups involving relevant stakeholder representatives – one specific suggestion, put forward by a group of respondents including packaging manufacturers, food and drink producers and retailers, but also reflected in the comments of some other respondents (e.g. charities, community groups), was for an ‘oversight board’ (appointed by the Minister) which would include public / third sector / academic representatives but exclude commercial bodies with a financial interest in the scheme (see also Questions 35 and 36)
• The establishment of a new public body, government agency or government department
• Existing bodies such as local authorities, Trading Standards, Inland Revenue, Zero Waste Scotland and third sector
• Proposals for how various bodies might work in combination in carrying out regulatory functions (e.g. an oversight board and Trading Standards). 

14.43 In some cases, respondents (mainly individuals) discussed the characteristics that they saw as important to any regulatory body but did not put forward specific suggestions as to which body might carry out the role. Variously, respondents wished to see a body that was independent and directly accountable to the government or Ministers; that was suitably specialist and strategically focused; that was open to partnership working; and that was underpinned by relevant legislation and had sufficient power to carry out the role.

14.44 Some respondents thought it was important that different regulators oversaw different parts of the scheme (the administrator, producers and return and processing sites) in order to avoid conflicts of interest.

14.45 Finally, some organisations – retailers and food and drink producers most notably – expressed a clear preference for a UK-wide scheme with regulation of the scheme administrator carried out at UK-level. This view accounted for a substantial proportion of the ‘don’t know’ responses at Questions 39 and 39a (tick-box part). 

Other comments on regulation 

14.46 Across Questions 35 to 39, the view that (specific or additional) regulation was not required was offered on a recurring basis. Those who said this thought it would make the scheme too complicated; existing regulatory regimes would apply; and self-regulation would happen naturally as a result of the various parties involved meeting their obligations.   

14.47 Additionally, individuals in particular often said they weren’t in a position to give a view on this issue – they were not knowledgeable enough to offer an opinion and the consultation paper had not provided sufficient information to allow them to comment.