 The next item of business is topical questions, and at question number one, I call Megan Gallacher. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government whether it will compensate businesses if it decides not to proceed with a deposit return scheme. Minister Lorna Slater. We are committed to our deposit return scheme, which is critical to reducing litter, tackling emissions and increasing recycling. I am grateful to all the businesses for the investment they have made in preparing for DRS. The missing piece of the jigsaw is for the UK Government to agree an exclusion from the internal market act. We have been discussing an exclusion with the UK Government for almost two years, fully following the agreed process. The UK Government needs to now do the right thing and agree an exclusion now to give businesses the certainty that they need in order to prepare for the launch in March and allow investment made by businesses to be put to good use. Megan Gallacher. Yesterday, during the Scottish Affairs Committee, the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that the UK Government was still missing elements of the application for an exemption to UK trade rules. The faults of that disastrous scheme lie firmly at the door of the Minister's office. The shambolic roll-out of this policy has damaged the relationship and confidence among Scottish businesses. Let's remind the chamber that thousands of businesses that have not even signed up to the SNP Green deposit return scheme because it will think that it will be too damaging for their business. The Scottish Retail Consortium has even said that one of Lorna Slater's recently proposed changes to the scheme makes it even less likely that the deposit return scheme will go ahead in March 2024. The Scottish Licensed Trade Association said explicitly that Lorna Slater has effectively torpedoed the scheme. Let me ask the minister why she thinks that Scottish businesses are wrong. I am going to address the point that the member raised earlier in her question. Simply, it is not true that the information that is required under the common framework has not been shared. The provision of the impact assessments of the kind that Mr Jack has demanded is not part of the common framework process, but it is not true that those have not been carried out. We have conducted a full set of impact assessments at the appropriate point in delivering the scheme. Those are publicly available. The Business Regulatory Impact Assessment, known as a Bria. Equality Impact Assessment. The Island's Impact Assessment. The Strategic Environmental Assessment. Within the Bria, we have covered all the impact assessments that Alistair Jack has claimed have not been conducted. I direct the member and him to the following pages. The competition assessment begins on page 35 of the Bria and the impact on consumer choice begins on page 58. We have supplied all the required information and more to agree an exclusion from the Internal and Market Act. Furthermore, the Secretary of State for Leveling Up Housing and Communities, that is Michael Gove, wrote to the DfFM today, thanking us for our updated analysis of the impact of the Scottish deposit return scheme and confirms that his government is currently processing and reviewing that information. In that letter, Mr Gove has not indicated that there is any further or outstanding information that the UK Government requires to enable them to make a decision on the Internal and Market Act exclusion. To answer the member's question, the reason that I can give the Scottish business confidence is because there is no reason for an Internal and Market Act exclusion not to be granted. We have provided all the information and Mr Gove and his colleagues are now considering that. Once again, the minister is abdicating responsibility in trying to pin the blame on the UK Government. The deposit return scheme is a long-standing Scottish Government project that it has been responsible for and has talked about for years. It is not anybody else's problem and everyone else but Lorna Slater agrees. It is time for the minister to put her money where her mouth is, if the minister who is responsible for paying compensation to Scottish businesses is so confident about the scheme and about her commitments that she has made today. Will she commit to publishing the Scottish Government's legal advice on who is liable to pay? To answer the member, as I have answered previously, I am committed to delivering Scotland's deposit return scheme on 1 March and we are working toward all the pieces of that, working closely with industry. The one piece we need left is that Internal and Market Act exclusion. As we have seen in that letter from Mr Gove today, we have provided all the information necessary for that to be granted and that is currently being considered by the UK Government. The DRS is a democratic decision made by this Parliament. The Tory Government Westminster has torn up the common frameworks intended to protect devolution and regulatory divergence. The common frameworks were developed in conjunction with the devolved legislatures of the UK and they permit regulatory divergence, including that they have a dispute resolution section that, to the best of my knowledge, has not been initiated in this DRS area. Does the minister agree that the anti-democratic posturing is putting the DRS scheme, regulatory divergence and the future of devolution, at risk, all for an internal market act that it reminds us well that this Parliament rejected and was ignored by Westminster? I absolutely agree with the member. There is a climate crisis now that requires urgent action and the deposit return scheme is a practical way to tackle that. Our deposit return scheme will help us to achieve our net zero ambitions as well as tackling litter and increasing recycling, all aims that I know the UK Government shares. There is strong public support for Scotland's deposit return scheme, with polling carried out in February, showing that 70 per cent of Scots support deposit return. It is astonishing that the Secretary of State for Scotland is actively working to undermine those aims and the way that devolution works. The UK Government, in the shape of DEFRA, can choose to ignore that conduct and grant the exemption now, which is in the interests of both Scotland and the wider UK. It is unacceptable that we are now facing massive uncertainty for our businesses because of the Scottish Government. We urgently need a ministerial statement on this matter, because our constituents' businesses and producers need more than the answers we will get now. I cannot hear you because members are shouting. You cannot listen when you are shouting, and I am sure that we would all agree that each and every member should be heard. The issue of compensation has arisen due to the predictable blame game taking place on an internal market exemption. Can the minister confirm what steps she and her officials have taken to look at all options? Can the minister confirm whether she and her officials have exhausted every possible solution that would avoid the need for an internal market exemption and to launch a successful and workable deposit return scheme? Yes or no? We know that we need an internal market act exclusion to launch the scheme. We have known it all along. That is why we have engaged with the UK Government in good faith on that exclusion for nearly two years now. We first raised the need for an exclusion in July 2021, and we have followed the process that was agreed between the UK and the devolved Governments. We have published a summary of the correspondence and engagement with the UK Government, which they do not dispute. We submitted a final detailed paper on the exclusion's proposal to the resources and waste common framework on 13 February this year. This was the culmination of the continued engagement at official and ministerial levels, excluding DRSs from the IMAs. We cannot go on indefinitely. We need an answer for that. However, as we have seen in the letter from Mr Gove today, the UK Government now has all the information that it needs and is actively considering it. Once they have made a decision on that, they know that that decision needs to be by the end of this month. We will proceed with delivering the deposit return scheme. Willie Rennie. The minister has got to acknowledge that this scheme has been in trouble for quite a long time, well before this recent episode. Confidence in those who are expected to deliver this scheme is rock bottom. Rather than stringing this out for yet more weeks and months, why does the minister not just acknowledge that she needs to go back to the drawing board, come up with a new scheme, work with the UK Government to develop something that works rather than stringing it out? Minister. I am rather shocked by the member who suggested that, because the regulations for deposit return scheme were passed by this Parliament in 2020. They were extensively consulted upon. They went through the committee process and all the stages of the Scottish Parliament. The deposit return scheme that is being delivered is in line with that work that was done at that time. It is absolutely my intention to continue to deliver what this Parliament voted for. That is what we are actively engaged with industry on. I do not agree with the member's characterisation. I met with industry stakeholders yesterday in terms of the high-level ministerial strategic group for the delivery of this. We are now looking at working through the operational details sector by sector with industry so that we can have that delivery in March. I am supporting the facilitation of the intersector group, so that, if there are issues that cannot be sorted out sector by sector by hospitality, by retail, by producer, they can be escalated to myself and resolved in the quickest and shortest possible time. I have every confidence that industry will be able to deliver this scheme, and that is what we are working on. I do not recognise the member's characterisation as this at all. Industry has invested hundreds of millions of pounds toward this scheme. They have recruited people. There are IT systems under way. Reverse spending machines are being installed. Sorting centres are being set up. The vehicles and logistics systems are being set up. We are all systems go. We just need that last little piece of the internal market. We will carry on with the launch. Brian Whittle Thank you, Presiding Officer. I remind the minister that we had 100% support of MSPs in this chamber for a DRS scheme, just not this shambles. More than that, as businesses have said the same. I ask the minister why, 10 months before this date, she is threatening to drop the scheme 10 months before. Why not 10 months before the last date, or 10 months before the date before that, or 10 months before the date before that? The reality is that you will put an official request in for the internal act. For the 6 March 2023, the public does not understand it, and the business does not understand it. The minister does not understand it. Is not it time to go back to the drawing board? The member is absolutely incorrect on that point. The process that Alistair Jack has described there for asking for in a formal request is not how the process for decisions between the Government's work is based on the common framework, which is an agreed and published process. Alistair Jack cannot just make up bits of the process for the purpose of saying that I did not comply with them. We have engaged with the UK Government in good faith on the exclusion at every step, and we have accomplished the correspondence and engagement that we have had with the UK Government. We first raised the need for the exclusion in July 2021. This has been going on for nearly two years. The UK Government must not delay any further. It must give us the confidence that we need to go forward. However, as I said in the letter from Michael Gove today, he has received all the information that he needs, and that decision is currently being considered by the UK Government. I really welcome that, and I look forward to a positive decision on this exclusion in the near future. The last gateway review was completed in March two months ago. Why has it not been made public and when will it be made public? Irrespective of who is responsible for compensation, can the minister simply confirm that businesses, producers and retailers have incurred costs as required by law? Therefore, if the scheme fails, they must get compensation. Does the minister accept that that principle is simply unchallangible? I believe that there were two questions there. On the second point, the question of compensation is a hypothetical one at this point. I am working towards getting the scheme launched and making sure that the scheme is a success. That is what we are putting in place towards the March 1 long. The second question that I think was embedded there was about the gateway review. The member is correct. The most recent gateway review took place in March, and the Scottish Government is fully carefully considering the recommendations of that review. We will be sharing those and the response to that review with the net zero energy and transport committee later on. The Secretary of State for Scotland is actively seeking to sabotage not only DRS with all its benefits for litter reduction, recycling and climate emissions, but the whole basis of devolution, the right of this Parliament and the Welsh Senneth to deliver DRS schemes across the UK which include glass. Can the minister say how she has sought to correct Mr Jack's misrepresentations and misunderstandings of the way that devolution works across the islands? Indeed, I met Mr Jack yesterday at our regular intergovernmental meeting, where I laid out to him exactly what we have been done in terms of following the process, and indeed how we have gone above and beyond the agreed process by providing all the additional information that he and his colleagues have asked for. I can certainly remind the member who will of course know that the Scottish Parliament approved the deposit and return scheme for Scotland regulations in 2020, long before the introduction of the internal market act. Those regulations are wholly within devolved competence and, of course, as the member alluded to, did include glass in the scheme as well. Liam Kerr, I am very grateful. The Scottish Government has spent nearly £220,000 so far on setting up the DRS. How much was budgeted for? Minister, I don't have that information to hand, but I'm happy to write to the member. The operational costs of running the scheme will be met by industry, of course, and already hundreds of millions of pounds of private investment have been made toward that. In recent days, we have temporarily increased the number of Scottish Government staff working on policy development and stakeholder engagement, which, of course, is to support the changes to the regulations that I'll be bringing to the Parliament shortly, ensure that industry is prepared for this scheme. Of course, we've had to handle an increase of freedom of information requests and increased correspondence with industry. I aim to respond to members, businesses and constituents in a timely fashion, so I believe that this is the response that you'd be expected by Parliament industry and the general public. Stephen Kerr. The minister is in denial. She is acting with recklessness. The question that was asked there by Fergus Ewing stands unanswered, and that is very simply this. The minister has apparently publicly admitted to businesses that by the end of this month the DRS might be scrapped. So how much does she estimate is due to businesses in compensation should that arise? If she says it's hypothetical, it's duty bound on her as a minister to take all of the considerations in mind regarding any decisions. So what is the amount that she has in mind that would be due to businesses in compensation? It's a very simple question. We don't need a pre-written script answer. Just tell us what it is. Minister. It doesn't matter how many times the member asks the question. The answer is still the same. It is a hypothetical question because the deposit return scheme is continuing ahead. All the information required for the granting of an exclusion to the internal market act has been submitted to the UK Government. In fact, weeks ago, indeed, we have submitted additional information. They have everything they need. There is no reason for an exclusion not to be granted. I look forward to hearing about that in the next few days and carrying on with the delivery of the deposit return scheme. Question 2, Paul O'Kane. To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides to retired carers. Cabinet Secretary, Shirley-Anne Somerville. Local carer centres provide information and advice services for unpaid carers, which must include information about support services, including when a caring role comes to an end. We have improved support for carers as a priority with our social security powers. Carers allowing supplement means eligible carers in Scotland will receive up to £540 more than those in the rest of the UK this year. Carer support payment will replace carers allowance from the end of this year. When carers receiving carer support payment will continue to receive national insurance credits to protect their state pension entitlement. Paul O'Kane. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Yesterday BBC Scotland reported some very troubling accounts of carers who have reached retirement age only to find themselves facing the rise in the cost of living without any substantial support. As a result of dedicating their lives to caring for a family member or a loved one, many unpaid carers miss out on a workplace pension, something that many other people have and rely on in old age. The Scottish Government has said that we can expect now to see the new Scottish Carers assistance introduced later in 2023, with a roll-out in 2024. However, does the cabinet secretary agree that the process of rolling out that new carer payment has been too slow and that the Scottish Government should be acting with all urgency to introduce a fairer payment system to prevent unpaid carers from falling into poverty? Any changes that have been made recently over the past couple of years have been as a direct result of the impact on Covid on the social security programme. That is not just the social security programme that is done here in Scotland, but also the very real and challenging situation that the DWP was in during Covid, particularly in the initial months. We have laid out to Parliament when we will be bringing forward the new carer's payments. The important aspect to point out is the level of consultation that has gone into that. Of course, the real care that we need to ensure that we do not, while we are including case transfer, not to have a two-tier system within our carer's payments for those who are still to have their cases transferred and those who are directly paid by Social Security Scotland. We will make further changes once case transfer is complete. The cabinet secretary has had five years since the passing of the act in order to prepare for the new benefits. For Scottish Carers Assistance to be truly an improvement on carers allowance, it is going to have to be paid to more unpaid carers and take into account their varied and very difficult situations that I have already outlined. Carers Scotland estimate that only one in 10 carers are eligible for the payment, with many not meeting qualifying criteria. The chamber would agree that it seems wrong that unpaid carers cannot access a benefit that has been supposedly made for them. Since the establishment of Social Security Scotland, we have been promised repeatedly by the Government that things would be better, yet many Scots have been made to wait with uncertainty just like they were under the DWP. Can the cabinet secretary say with confidence that the proposed Scottish Carers Assistance will be the much-needed long-term improvement carers allowance that will allow more unpaid carers to access support, or will it merely be a tweak that fails Scotland's unpaid carers who desperately needs it now more than ever? There will be changes to the carers support payment. For example, a reduced past presence tends to allow carers to receive support sooner and the extension of eligibility to more carers in full-time education. Once case transfer is complete to avoid that two-tier system, and when it is safe to do so, we have committed to providing additional support and extra support for those caring, for example, for more than one person, extending support after the death of a cared-for person from eight to twelve weeks, and providing short-term assistance where the carer or the person that they care for is challenging a decision on their benefits. Our consultation also set out further improvements that could be made in the future, in which we are continuing to consider feedback on those, including the increases to earnings limit and providing extended support for cared for person in hospital or care. Those are important changes that are already planned. Of course we will consider what further improvements they will be made, but let's be very clear about that, that they will require further funding within a fixed Scottish budget, and decisions will need to be taken about how we will take forward that funding in the future. Unpaid carers provide vital support to the people that they look after, as well as benefit in Scotland as a whole. Can the cabinet secretary reiterate how the decisions that the Scottish Government has made, for example through investment in the carers allowance supplement, and how that is helping to provide carers with the best package of support anywhere in the UK? We have invested £230 million in the carers allowance supplement since 2018, and carers continually in receipt of carers allowance since launch will have received over £3,300 more than the majority of carers in the UK by the end of this year. We have also invested £2.4 million since 2019 in the young carers grant, the first support of its kind in the UK, providing £359 to eligible young carers this year. Carers support payment will replace carers allowance from the end of this year, as I have mentioned earlier, and that will deliver an improved service and, for example, will allow more carers and full-time education to receive support.