 Y cwestiynau yw'r amendemyn 8064.1 yn y neil bibi, sydd yn amendemyn 8064 yn y neil George Adam ar hyn o'r Bureau i Parlenau, ddwych chi'n fawr i'r lleidio, i'r fawr amdeg. Rhyw gwrs yw'r fawr yn iawn. Yn y fawr yn mwyntfield. Mae'r fawr yn fawr yn fwyntfield. Mae'r app eisiau yw'r fawr wedi'i cefnwys. Mae'r fawr yn fwyntfield. Mae'r fawr yn fwyntfield. Mae'r wgffordd yn fwyntfield amendment number 8064.1, in the name of Neil Bibby, is yes 54, no 64, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 8064, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Can I just confirm that we are all agreed? Yes. Thank you, the motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion 8065, on approval of an SSI, and I ask George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. Thank you, Minister. I call on Edward Mountain. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to make clear at the outset that, whilst I am a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transcourt Committee, I want to make clear that I am speaking on behalf of my party. I will begin by stating the obvious. The drinks industry are watching the actions of this Government with absolute despair. At the same time, the outgoing First Minister is urging producers to sign up to the deposit return scheme. Her three potential replacements are already promising to changes to it. Kate Forbes has even warned that the scheme could cause economic carnage. That does not seem to have discouraged launas later, though. The Greens are pressing ahead with this SSI, whether the SNP likes it or not, which makes one wonder whether it is the tale that is now wagging the dog in this coalition Government. This Parliament is being asked to support an SSI that allows penalties to be levied on a scheme that is not yet in place and has already suffered with two delays and of which only 16 per cent of producers across Scotland have registered with. At the weekend, the Minister did not even know whether the small drinks producers would be exempt for a further year, but today she appears to want to set up the police force to enforce the scheme. That sounds a lot like putting the car up before the horse. A logistical nightmare that the Minister is obviously drawing inspiration from. I am grateful to Edwin Mountain for taking that intervention. I recognise that the SSI covers more than the deposit return scheme, but since it was agreed by the net zero committee, it has become increasingly clear, as Edwin Mountain has highlighted, no more so than today's statement that there do remain more questions and answers with the current plans for DRS. We heard today, for example, that fewer than 16 per cent of producers have signed up. The member cannot make an intervention on an intervention, Mr Smith. The deposit return scheme, the Greens, are making the standard orders up as they go along. We do not know yet whether there will be the delay for small producers that Labour has been called for. We do not even know if there will be an exemption from the internal market bill. Does Edwin Mountain agree that the Government should pause the SSI and bring it back when it has the confidence of Scotland's small producers with a scheme that will deliver environmental commitments? However, if we are serious about a just transition, which the Greens used to be, it also delivers for Scotland's consumers and Scotland's small businesses. I thank the member for that intervention. I clearly agree with him that the deposit return scheme is something that we should be encouraging, providing it works properly. That is why, when the SSI came before the committee, I had a chance to consider it. I had a chance to consider what it contained and why I abstained when I voted on it. However, now, in the cool light of day and having had a chance to further consider it, I feel that it is no longer appropriate. If I can finish this section, I will take an intervention. That is why I no longer consider it appropriate to move on. I will give way to Mr Ruskell. I thank the member for taking an intervention. I wonder if, in his capacity as convener of the committee, he could confirm to the chamber that the Labour Party actually voted for this SSI when it came to the committee. I will try to wind up, if I may. I am not going to speak in this debate as the convener of the committee. I am speaking as an individual with serious concerns. Let me just be clear that what this SSI is doing is making sure that the SEPA has the powers to impose penalties and there is no option for anyone to appeal this process. I have to say that, as I said at the committee, I really question whether giving SEPA the responsibility is appropriate. Ever since SEPA suffered the data hack, it has struggled to get back on its feet again. That impacted the agency's ability to regulate the industries that they effectively should be doing at the moment. Giving SEPA more powers and more responsibilities when they are under serious pressure on a scheme that is already appearing to be a disaster would further compound that disaster. Next month, the Parliament will have a new First Minister, Lorna Slater and the Greens Mail may or may not be in government, and the deposit return scheme may be delayed or go through a current week back. Mr Mountain, I must ask you to conclude at this point that we are already two minutes over the allotted time. Okay, thank you. I will conclude. That is why I am not supporting the SSI nor is my party. Thank you. I call on Lorna Slater. The environmental regulation enforcement measures Scotland amendment order 2023 provides SEPA with access to civil enforcement measures for offences in two existing pieces of legislation. Data reporting regulations that enable upcoming packaging extended producer responsibility reforms and the amending DRS regulations passed by this Parliament last year, which added one new offence in response to calls from industry. SEPA is already responsible for the enforcement of both EPR and DRS regulations, but currently, where an offence is committed under either set of regulations, their only option is to report the matter to the Procurator Fiscal for criminal prosecution. This technical instrument provides more flexibility to SEPA. It adds these offences to the existing list of the 2015 enforcement order, meaning SEPA can turn to civil sanctions where appropriate. This makes a substantial difference to SEPA's enforcement options. Criminal prosecution through the courts takes time and the results are uncertain. Upon conviction for these offences, a court can impose a fine of up to £10,000 on summary conviction or an unlimited fine on conviction of indictment. In contrast, the values for fixed monetary policies associated with civil sanctions are £300, £600 or £1,000, with the amounts of the penalty linked to the seriousness of the offence. Opposing the instrument means calling for stricter enforcement approaches for businesses than what we are aiming to bring in. Let me give you an example. Regulation 233 in the packaging waste data reporting regulations says that SEPA may give an information notice requiring a person with data collection or reporting obligations to supply data within a set period of time. Regulation 285 makes it an offence for the person not to comply with the written notice unless they have a reasonable excuse. With this enforcement measure instrument in place, SEPA has the option of imposing a fixed monetary penalty of £600. Without it, SEPA's only option is to enforce compliance to submit a report to the Procurator Fiscal in anticipation of criminal prosecution. I made this clear to the committee on 7 February and welcomed Monica Lennon's comments, which supported the flexible flexibility and proportionality that is being provided by this approach. Amending the 2015 enforcement order does not change the obligations placed on producers for either DRS or APR. It provides a flexible and proportionate option for enforcing those obligations, which will benefit businesses. Opposing it is illogical and would result in businesses who fall foul of the regulations facing criminal sanctions. I cannot believe that that is the outcome that members seriously want. I encourage them to support the motion. I move the motion. Thank you. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration. Excuse me, I cannot hear myself speak because of other conversations that are on-going. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 8066 on approval of an SSI, and I asked George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motion. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. There are seven questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that motion 8007, in the name of Tom Arthur, on local government finance Scotland order 2023, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Can I confirm? Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on motion 8007, in the name of Tom Arthur, is yes, 84, no, 4. There were 30 abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 8053.2, in the name of Sandesh Gulhani, which seeks to amend motion 8053, in the name of Kevin Stewart on dementia strategy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 8053.2, in the name of Sandesh Gulhani, is yes, 55, no, 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 8053.1, in the name of Paul O'Kane, which seeks to amend motion 8053, in the name of Kevin Stewart on dementia strategy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 8053.1, in the name of Paul O'Kane, is yes, 23, no, 93. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 8053, in the name of Kevin Stewart on dementia strategy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 8037, in the name of Maggie Chapman, on behalf of the Scottish Parliament corporate body, on appointment of members of the Standards Commission for Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 8065, in the name of George Adam, on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on motion 8065, in the name of George Adam, is yes, 62, no, 55. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 8066, in the name of George Adam, on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time, and we will now move on to members' business, in the name of Craig Hoy. Excuse me, Mr Hoy, will be a moment or two.