A Deposit Return Scheme for Scotland - Equality Impact Assessment

In 2017, 1% of adults aged 16 to 24 reported not using the internet, compared to 24% per cent of those aged 60 to 74 and 63% of those aged 75 and over. The method of accessing the internet also varies with age, for example, 93% of 16 to 24-year olds use a mobile phone, compared to 53% of those in the 60-74 years bracket. There is a clear relationship between age and internet use, with lower usage rates among older people. 

This analysis of this evidence is unchanged from the partial EQIA which suggests that online, digital and social media channels are an effective way of targeting young people.  However, there may be more effective channels for engaging older people and those experiencing socio-economic disadvantage.

Scottish Household Survey 2017^[8].

It was highlighted in the partial EQIA that individuals with learning difficulties may require additional support to participate in the scheme. 

For example, an estimated 1 in10 people in Scotland has dyslexia - 500,000 people across all ages. Proportions vary across specific communities (for example, in prison, rates of dyslexia are 60% and in farming communities, 20%). 

People who experience dyslexia can encounter a complex range of learning differences with reading/writing, processing information, organisation issues, short term memory, remembering sequences, following instructions and visual stress. 

To assist this community, Dyslexia Scotland has its own:

- Youtube channel;

- A website for children (8-18yrs); 

- Tailored Information packs.

Interview with Dyslexia Scotland, 2018.

Some stakeholders have commented on the impact that DRS may have on people with early stage Dementia or Alzheimer’s and raised the question of what will be done to mitigate issues for people affected by such conditions.

Interviews with Dyslexia Scotland, Learning Link Scotland and STUC Equality Officer, 2018.

In 2017, over a quarter of adults (28%) reported a long-term physical or mental health condition.  It is not unreasonable to conclude that such conditions could limit the ability of individuals to access return points.

The Scottish Household Survey statistics 2017.

Evidence was gathered through an electronic survey, organised by Disability Equality Scotland (DES), to explore the potential impact of DRS on disabled people. 

Respondents typically raised the impact of their disability on their ability to return containers. A requirement for additional storage at home and the proximity of return locations were highlighted as key considerations. 

Respondents consistently highlighted the importance of local return points and that these should include local shops.

Disability Equality Scotland (DES) Electronic Survey Analysis October 2018.

Experience in other countries operating DRS seems to suggest that scheme accessibility can best be facilitated through a return to retail model accommodating both manual and automated takeback.  The inclusion of small retailers and local shops can help to maximise participation by everyone in both urban and rural communities.

Zero Waste Scotland interviews with RVM manufacturers on 28 September 2018: RVM Systems, TOMRA and Envipco.

Accessibility of the scheme would be supported by:

• siting RVMs in accessible locations
• ensuring RVMs are user-friendly 
• ensuring that the required accessibility standards are met in respect of these facilities

Zero Waste Scotland interview with stakeholders 12 April 2018.

Information from the RVM manufacturers, based on their experience of operating their technology in other countries, suggests that the provision of a network of accessible, local drop off points and return locations, including RVMs, will enable participation of people experiencing mobility, disability and/or health issues. 

There are examples of larger retailers in other countries making physical modifications to enable greater access to RVMs for people using a wheelchair or experiencing other disabilities such as visual or hearing impairments.

Zero Waste Scotland interviews with three RVM manufacturers on 28 September 2018: RVM Systems, TOMRA and Envipco.

Experience in other countries suggests that small stores often do not operate RVMs due to space constraints.

Zero Waste Scotland interviews with three RVM manufacturers on 28 September 2018: RVM Systems, TOMRA and Envipco.

The scheme’s target operating model, including the specification for RVMs, will need to ensure return points are accessible in order to maximise opportunities for participation.  

In particular, the specification for RVMs will need to afford retailers a degree of flexibility, allowing them to select and operate the machine which best meets their needs.

Research indicates that the utilisation of RVMs is often regulated through legislation. Regulation can extend to, for example:

• Considerations around the location of RVMs.
• Considerations around the number of RVMs to be operated on individual premises, taking account of building, planning and health and safety standards. 

The locational placement of RVMs is often the responsibility of the Scheme Administrator.

Zero Waste Scotland interviews with three RVM manufacturers on 28 September 2018: RVM Systems, TOMRA and Envipco.

Evidence suggests that adaptations to RVMs can assist disabled people.  Information from the RVM manufacturers demonstrates the potential for flexibility in machine specifications, including in relation to reach and height.  Other optional features can include:

• Colour, size and font of text
• Automatic production of receipt
• Use of visuals and graphics
• Voice activation
• Touch screen
• Interactive screen
• Dual language

In order to maximise accessibility, RVM suppliers suggested that machines should be:

• intuitive

• user-friendly
• self-explanatory

Zero Waste Scotland interviews with three RVM manufacturers on 28 September 2018: RVM Systems, TOMRA and Envipco.

Engagement with both equality groups and RVM manufacturers emphasised the importance of design and planning of local return points and RVM locations to ensure accessibility and convenience, including for example:

• well-lit spaces
• visible signage
• posters
• local guidance
• colour-coded maps
• signposts
• child-friendly/user-friendly machines

Zero Waste Scotland interviews with three RVM manufacturers on 28 September 2018: RVM Systems, TOMRA and Envipco.

Interviews with Dyslexia Scotland, Inclusion Scotland, Learning Link Scotland and STUC Equality Officer 2018.

It is evident that many equality groups have expertise in guiding the design and delivery of services to maximise accessibility.  This experience and understanding should be harnessed to assist in the design of the DRS and RVMs.

Interviews with Dyslexia Scotland, Inclusion Scotland, Learning Link Scotland and STUC Equality Officer 2018.

Evidence suggests there may be, on occasion, a need for staff working at return points to support customers in accessing RVMs.

Zero Waste Scotland interviews with three RVM manufacturers on 28 September 2018: RVM Systems, TOMRA and Envipco.

The proportion of households with home internet access is highest in large urban areas (87%) and remote rural areas (86%), and lowest in remote small towns (80%).

Scottish Household Survey 2017.

Gaps in internet access and use remain amongst certain groups including those in deprived areas, those in social housing and those on low incomes. 19% of adults living in the 20% most deprived areas in Scotland reported not using the internet compared with 15% in the 20% least deprived areas.

Home internet use tends to increase with household income, although the gap is lessening over time. In 2017, 63% of households with incomes of £15,000 or less had home internet access, increasing to 99% of households with incomes over £40,000

Indications are that a digital divide remains along a number of dimensions, including age and socio-economic disadvantage. 

Scottish Household Survey 2017.

Stakeholders consistently identified that many of those who use online shopping will have little choice but to rely on some form of take-back service to be provided at the point at which their groceries are being delivered if they are to be able to redeem their deposit. 

Interviews with Equality Officers, STUC Equalities Disabled Workers Committee.

Respondents to Disability Equality Scotland’s membership survey consistently highlighted the reliance of disabled people on online shopping. 

Disability Equality Scotland (DES) Electronic Survey Analysis 2018.

Evidence suggests that online shopping is increasing in the United Kingdom, both in terms of value and growth. The average value of weekly online sales in food stores has more than doubled between 2010 and 2016, reaching £141.9m.

The Statistics Portal: Online grocery shopping in the United Kingdom^[9]. 

Mintel research shows that online grocery shopping is growing, with many young people opting to shop online. Almost two thirds of young people in UK (62%) aged 25-34 are current online grocery shoppers, as well as 57% aged 35-44 and 56% aged 16-24.

Mintel Research Report on Online Grocery Shopping^[10]

Information and data gathered by directly contacting all 32 Scottish local authority waste service managers highlighted the need for further clarification on:

• how residents who currently receive an assisted kerbside collection service will be able to participate in the scheme without assistance.
• The role of councils in communicating the interaction of DRS with existing kerbside collection arrangements. Many councils currently provide information concerning kerbside collections digitally in order to minimise costs. 

Analysis of the information requested by Zero Waste Scotland from all 32 local authorities on the assisted kerbside collection service they offer their residents.  

Equality law makes clear that bringing about equality may mean changing the way in which services are delivered, providing extra equipment and/or the removal of physical barriers. This is the duty to make ‘reasonable adjustments’. 

The Scheme Administrator will require to be proactive and anticipatory in taking steps to remove or prevent any obstacles.

The Equality Act 2010^[11]

Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Guidance: Equality Law and What it Means for Business^[12]

Experience from other countries shows us that standards for the operation of deposit return schemes are often determined through national regulations and/or legislation. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) outlines standards that require to be met for RVMs regarding reach heights for people who use wheelchairs.  

Americans with Disabilities Act^[13]

Guidance on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design^[14]

Research on standards suggests that British Standard BS 8300-1:2018 and BS 8300-2:2018 provide guidance on designing accessible and inclusive environments, how to approach inclusive design and how to adopt a strategic approach to access and inclusion in design process.

Guide To Designing Accessible And Inclusive Environments: The British Standard BS 8300-1:2018 and 8300-2:2018^[15].

X

Ministers’ preferred scheme design for DRS is detailed through the Deposit Return Scheme Full Business Case Stage 1 which in turn has been informed by the evidence outlined in this full Equality Impact Assessment.  We have not identified any evidence to suggest that the proposed scheme will result in unlawful discrimination.

X

As outlined earlier in this document, it is clear that many of the key features of the proposed scheme design have the potential to impact on equality of opportunity across the range of protected characteristics.  Steps have been taken throughout the development of the scheme design to maximise equality of opportunity for public participation and these are outlined below: 

Public communication: Accessible communication and inclusive engagement will be central to ensuring high participation and equality of access to the scheme. 

As work progresses in preparation for the scheme’s implementation, it will be crucial to ensure that DRS communication and engagement activity has a strong equality focus.  This will allow us to ensure that people with a range of needs and characteristics will be able to clearly understand what the DRS is, how it works, where they can find their nearest return point, what they can return and how they can redeem their deposit.  

Comprehensive, multi-channelled and inclusively designed communication and engagement programmes and materials will be key to achieving this. 

Accessibility of return points: The evidence gathered to date suggests that the location of return points, their accessibility and convenience of use should be prioritised.  The preferred scheme design has taken account of this by proposing that a return to any place of purchase model will be adopted as part of the scheme, meaning that members of the public will be able to return containers to any retailer who sells single-use drinks containers covered by the scheme.   Non-retail spaces will also be able to act as return locations. These could include recycling centres, schools or other community hubs.

Return points will be able to operate both manual and automated take-back arrangements, thereby removing a potential obstacle to the participation of smaller retailers who may not be in a position to accommodate an RVM.

Operation of Reverse Vending Machines (RVMs): 

Evidence gathered suggests it is important that all RVMs are accessible in terms of both their location and operation.  

The provision of modified RVMs, alongside RVMs of standard design, will be key in enhancing access to the scheme as will the provision of support in those retail settings operating RVMs.  These are factors which will be considered as part of the work the Scottish Government’s DRS Implementation Advisory group.

Participation of those who use online grocery retailers:  Online shopping is a service that is relied on by many people including disabled people and those who live in rural areas. Accordingly, the preferred scheme design proposes that online retailers be required to operate a take-back service for their customers. This means that those customers who are dependent on online delivery, because for a variety of reasons they are unable to travel to shops, are able to easily get back the deposits paid on containers.

Participation of those who use local authority assisted kerbside collection support services: Further work is required to understand what additional support can be offered to those individuals who currently receive assisted kerbside collection services in order to aid their participation in DRS.  We will consider this as part of our ongoing discussions with local government about the implementation of deposit return.

X

The DRS preferred scheme design is unlikely to impact on the promotion of good relations between disabled and non-disabled people.

Have positive or negative impacts been identified for any of the equality groups?

The potential for negative impacts from this policy have been identified. Through
this work, though, measures to effectively mitigate these impacts have also been identified – some of these have been reflected in the scheme design and others will be addressed as part of implementation work. 

It is important to note that the protected characteristics considered within this full EQIA are not independent of each other and some people may have to deal with complex and interconnected issues related to experiencing disadvantage at any one time.  The preferred scheme design outlined in the Deposit Return Scheme Full Business Case Stage 1 takes steps to mitigate any potential negative impacts on equality groups and prioritises the promotion of equality of opportunity to participate in the scheme.

As we enter the implementation phase of the scheme, the following steps may prove helpful to further mitigate the potential for any negative impacts to be realised:

• Principles and practice of inclusive design, using the BS8300 Standard, should inform implementation acitivity going forward.
• The accessing of further expert advice in inclusive design could assist in the implementation of a scheme that maximises participation by all.

• A range of functional modifications to RVMs should be considered to aid participation amongst all members of society. 

Is the policy directly or indirectly discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010^[16]?

There is no evidence that the policy is directly or indirectly discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010.

If the policy is indirectly discriminatory, how is it justified under the relevant legislation?

N/A

If not justified, what mitigating action will be undertaken?

N/A